Google LLC v. sanjay kumar saini / plagiarism removing
Claim Number: FA1904001840361
Complainant is Google LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Brendan J. Hughes of Cooley LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is sanjay kumar saini / plagiarism removing (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <google2019.com>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and, to the best of his knowledge, has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 24, 2019; the Forum received payment on April 24, 2019.
On April 25, 2019, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <google2019.com> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On May 1, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 21, 2019 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@google2019.com. Also on May 1, 2019, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On May 24, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant has operated a search engine maintaining indexed online content since 1997. Complainant has rights to the GOOGLE mark through registration with various governmental agencies, including the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 2,884,502, registered Sep. 14, 2004). Respondent’s <google2019.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it merely adds the generic or descriptive term “2019”.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the <google2019.com> domain name. Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use its mark and Respondent is not commonly known as the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that purports to be endorsed by Complainant and offers compensation in exchange for authoring blog posts. The Complainant’s mark is displayed in full on the website and Respondent is attempting to pass off as Complainant.
Respondent <google2019.com> domain name was registered in bad faith. Respondent incorporated the GOOGLE mark in the domain name and placed the mark on the resolving website. Respondent’s use of the mark is evidence of bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has operated a search engine maintaining indexed online content since 1997. Complainant has rights to the GOOGLE mark through registration with various governmental agencies, including the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 2,884,502, registered Sept. 14, 2004). Respondent’s <google2019.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
Respondent registered the <google2019.com> domain name on December 8, 2018.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the <google2019.com> domain name. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that purports to be endorsed by Complainant and offers compensation in exchange for authoring blog posts. The Complainant’s mark is displayed in full on the website and Respondent is attempting to pass off as Complainant.
Respondent <google2019.com> domain name was registered and used in bad faith.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
Complainant has rights to the GOOGLE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration with various governmental trade agencies, including the USPTO See Glashütter Uhrenbetrieb GmbH v. li zilin / QQ869292929, FA 1575562 (Forum Sept. 23, 2014) (“Trademark registrations with a governmental authority are sufficient to prove rights in a mark pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i)”).
Respondent’s <google2019.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s GOOGLE mark, as the disputed domain name fully incorporates the mark and only adds “2019” and a gTLD.
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests <google2019.com> domain name. Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the GOOGLE mark. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name shows “sanjay kumar saini” as the registrant. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA1506001626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (The WHOIS information can establish whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)). Therefore, here, Respondent is not commonly known by the <google2019.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Respondent has not made a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the <google2019.com> domain name. The resolving website uses Complainant’s mark to offer compensation in exchange for authoring blog posts. See Homer TLC, Inc. v. Wang, FA 1336037 (Forum Aug. 23, 2010) (holding that, where a disputed domain name purports to offer Internet users a gift card as compensation for filling out surveys, the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name amounts to neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)). Here, the Respondent’s <google2019.com> domain name resolves to a website that purports to be endorsed by the Complainant, offers compensation in exchange for authoring blog posts and requests personal information from internet users via a registration tool. Therefore, Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <google2019.com> domain name.
Respondent also does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <google2019.com> domain name, as Respondent is attempting to pass off as Complainant. See Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) (refusing to find rights and legitimate interests in a respondent’s domain name when the disputed domain name “resolves to a website that Respondent has designed to mimic Complainant’s own in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant”).
Respondent registered and used the <google2019.com> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) as Respondent attempted to pass off as Complainant. See Wells Fargo & Co. v. Mihael, FA 605221 (Forum Jan. 16, 2006) (using a resolving website to pass off as a complainant for the purpose of deceiving complainant’s customers into providing to respondent their login identification, social security numbers, account information and Personal Identification Numbers constitutes bad faith registration and use of the subject domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).
Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the GOOGLE mark prior to registering the <google2019.com> domain name; therefore, Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (actual knowledge found through “the name used for the domain and the use made of it,” thereby constituting bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).
Further, Respondent registered and used the <google2019.com> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), as it is inconceivable that Respondent could make use of the name without knowledge of Complainant’s mark. See Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec. 9, 2000) (finding bad faith registration and use where it is “inconceivable that the respondent could make any active use of the disputed domain names without creating a false impression of association with the Complainant”).
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <google2019.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: June 6, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page