Google LLC v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp.
Claim Number: FA2102001932873
Complainant is Google LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Fabricio Vayra of Perkins Coie LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp. (“Respondent”), Bahamas.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <googlepis.com>, registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp.
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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on February 19, 2021; the Forum received payment on February 19, 2021.
On February 22, 2021, Internet Domain Service BS Corp confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <googlepis.com> domain name is registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Internet Domain Service BS Corp has verified that Respondent is bound by the Internet Domain Service BS Corp 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 February 22, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 15, 2021 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@googlepis.com. Also on February 22, 2021, 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 March 22, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends as follows:
Complainant is the owner of one the most highly recognized search engines.
Complainant has rights in the GOOGLE mark based upon the registration with the United States Patent and Trademar Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <googlepis.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s GOOGLE mark as it contains the mark in its entirety and merely adds the term “PIS” and the “.com” generic top level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <googlepis.com> domain name since Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the GOOGLE mark. Additionally, Respondent fails to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as the at-issue domain name instead redirects to third party websites which facilitate malware.
Respondent registered and uses the <googlepis.com> domain name in bad faith as Respondent has registered multiple domain names which incorporate well-known marks. Further, Respondent’s inactive holding of the <googlepis.com> domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has trademark rights in GOOGLE.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademarks in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the GOOGLE trademark.
Respondent uses the <googlepis.com> domain name to ultimate link to scam websites intent on installing malicious software although at-times Respondent simply holds the domain name passively.
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”).
The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s USPTO trademark registration(s) for GOOGLE shows Complainant’s rights in mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Respondent’s <googlepis.com> domain name contains Complainant’s GOOGLE trademark followed by the term “pis“‑a term which according to Complainant appears to refer to “GOOGLEAPIS” (Google application programming interfaces)‑ with all followed by the top-level domain name “.com.” The differences between Complainant’s trademark and Respondent’s domain name fail to distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s mark for the purpose of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The Panel thus concludes that Respondent’s <googlepis.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s GOOGLE trademark. See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant’s entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy).
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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Australian Stock Exch. v. Cmty. Internet (Australia) Pty Ltd, D2000-1384 (WIPO Nov. 30, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) where the respondent registered multiple infringing domain names containing the trademarks or service marks of other widely known Australian businesses)
The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the domain name’s registrant as “Domain Admin” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the <googlepis.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <googlepis.com> domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark).
Furthermore, Respondent uses the <googlepis.com> domain name at times to address to a third-party malicious website that redirects internet users to scam websites intent on installing malicious software, and at-times simply holds the domain name passively. Respondent’s use of the domain name in this manner indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4 (c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Hilton Hotels Corp. v. Padonack, FA 1043687 (Forum Sept. 6, 2007) (holding that the use of a disputed domain name to host a website that attempted to download a virus when accessed did not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a domain name).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The at-issue domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, there is evidence from which the Panel may conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
First, Respondent has registered multiple domain names that wholly incorporate well-known trademarks. Such domain names all share identical SSL information and mail server information. They also direct users to download malware. Respondent’s repeated cybersquatting evidences a pattern of domain name abuse and suggests Respondent’s bad faith in the instant case pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Australian Stock Exch. v. Cmty. Internet (Australia) Pty Ltd, D2000-1384 (WIPO Nov. 30, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) where the respondent registered multiple infringing domain names containing the trademarks or service marks of other widely known Australian businesses).
Additionally and as mentioned above regarding rights and legitimate interests, Respondent uses the <googlepis.com> domain name to facilitate the distribution of malware. Respondent’s distribution of malware via the at-issue domain name is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Timothy Mays aka Linda Haley aka Edith Barberdi, FA1617061 (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.”).
Finally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the GOOGLE mark when it registered <googlepis.com> as a domain name. Respondent’s actual knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s GOOGLE trademark and the inclusion of the term “pis” in at-issue domain name; a term obliquely suggesting Complainant’s software related business. Respondent’s registration and use of a confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s trademark rights in such domain name shows Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); see also, Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <googlepis.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant..
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: March 23, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page