Google LLC v. Raj Bansal
Claim Number: FA1912001875857
Complainant is Google LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Melissa Alcantara of Dickinson Wright PLLC, United States of America. Respondent is Raj Bansal (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <googlewifilogin.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on December 18, 2019; the Forum received payment on December 18, 2019.
On December 19, 2019, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <googlewifilogin.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 December 20, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 9, 2020 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@googlewifilogin.com. Also on December 20, 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 January 15, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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
1. Respondent’s <googlewifilogin.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s GOOGLE mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <googlewifilogin.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <googlewifilogin.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to file a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant holds a registration for its well-known GOOGLE mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 2,884,502, registered Sep. 14, 2004).
Respondent registered the <googlewifilogin.com> domain name on April 21, 2018, and uses it to compete with Complainant, and to distribute malware.
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”).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”).
Complainant argues that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <googlewifilogin.com> domain name, as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. Respondent has no license or consent to use the GOOGLE mark or to register domain names using Complainant’s mark. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Raj Bansal.” Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name); see also Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”).
Complainant argues that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Complainant contends that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to trick consumers into believing that Respondent is somehow affiliated with Complainant in order to offer competing services. The use of a disputed domain name to confuses Internet users into thinking that some sort of affiliation exists between respondent and complainant in order to offer competing services is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) (“Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent’s website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is 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).”); see also General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (“use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant’s business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). Complainant provides screenshots of the website at <googlewifilogin.com> domain name that shows Complainant’s GOOGLE mark and offers support services for Complainant’s products. The Panel finds that this use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
Furthermore, Complainant argues that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to attempt to distribute malware. The use of a disputed domain name to distribute malicious software is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Snap Inc. v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA 1735300 (Forum July 14, 2017) (“Use of a disputed domain name to offer malicious software does not constitute a bona fide offering or a legitimate use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii).”). Complainant provides a virus scan printout that shows the attempt to download malware. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has failed to use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <googlewifilogin.com> domain name in bad faith. Specifically, Complainant argues that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use. A respondent’s prior UDRP history of registration of multiple domain names incorporating variants of the complainant’s mark may reflect a pattern of bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Philip Morris USA Inc. v. RapidClic / VAUCLIN Olivier, FA1309001520008 (Forum Nov. 7, 2013) (finding that the respondent’s registration of multiple infringing domain names indicates a pattern of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)). Complainant shows that the Forum entered three separate decisions against “Raj bansal” and/or “Rajneesh kumar,” including one case where Respondent registered two domains incorporating Complainant’s GOOGLE and GOOGLE CHROMECAST marks. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).
Complainant contends that Respondent is disrupting Complainant’s business by diverting Internet users to <googlewifilogin.com> to offer competing goods and services. Using a disputed domain name to mislead users and redirect them to a competing website constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See ZIH Corp. v. ou yang lin q, FA1761403 (Forum Dec. 29, 2017) (Finding bad faith where Respondent used the infringing domain name to disrupt Complainant’s business by diverting Internet users from Complainant’s website to Respondent’s website where it offered competing printer products); see also Citadel LLC and its related entity, KCG IP Holdings, LLC v. Joel Lespinasse / Radius Group, FA1409001579141 (Forum Oct. 15, 2014) (“Here, the Panel finds evidence of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith as Respondent has used the confusingly similar domain name to promote its own financial management and consulting services in competition with Complainant.”). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).
Complainant further argues that Respondent uses the <googlewifilogin.com> domain name in bad faith in an attempt to distribute malware. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent used the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Timothy Mays aka Linda Haley aka Edith Barberdi, FA1504001617061 (Forum June 9, 2015) (“In addition, Respondent’s undenied use of the websites resolving from the contested domain names to distribute malware and other malicious downloads further illustrates its bad faith in the registration and use of those domain names.”).
Complainant argues that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the GOOGLE mark prior to registration of the <googlewifilogin.com> domain name, due to the fame of the mark. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to the registration of the disputed domain name, which constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. ALEXANDER DE ALMEIDA LOPES, FA 1705267 (Forum Jan. 9, 2017) (finding the respondent had actual knowledge of the complainant’s COACHELLA mark when it registered and used the <coachellastuff.com> domain name—and thus did so in bad faith—because the complainant presented adequate evidence that its mark was well-known and famous).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <googlewifilogin.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: January 16, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page