Google LLC v. Krombopulos Michael
Claim Number: FA2205001998216
Complainant is Google LLC (“Complainant”), represented by James R. Davis, II of Perkins Coie LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Krombopulos Michael (“Respondent”), Utah, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <xn--googe-7nc.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on May 26, 2022; the Forum received payment on May 26, 2022.
On May 31, 2022, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <xn--googe-7nc.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 June 1, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 21, 2022 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@xn--googe-7nc.com. Also on June 1, 2022, 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 June 30, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill 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.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAME
The domain names in dispute, <googɩe.com> is an internationalized domain name (“IDN”) with the PUNYCODE translation of [<xn--googe-7nc.com>]. An IDN is a domain name that contains non-traditional characters, such as letters with diacritics or other non-ASCII characters. In order to display characters or symbols in a domain name, the terms of the domain name are encoded into a scheme such as PUNYCODE.
In the past, panels have found IDNs and their PUNYCODE translations to be equivalent. See Damien Persohn v. Lim, FA 874447 (Forum Feb. 19, 2007) (finding an internationalized domain name, <têtu.com>, and its PUNYCODE translation, <xn--ttu-fma.com>, to be one and the same under the Policy); see also Württembergische Versicherung AG v. Emir Ulu, D2006-0278 (WIPO May 4, 2006) (finding that the <xn--wrttembergische-versicherung-16c.com> should be considered as equivalent to the <württembergische-versicherung.com> domain name, based on previous panel decisions recognizing the relevance of I-nav software for translating German letters such as “ä” or “ü” into codes such as <xn--[name]-16c> and similar); see also Fujitsu Ltd. v. tete and Lianqiu Li, D2006-0885 (WIPO Oct. 12, 2006) (finding the <xn--zqsv0e014e.com> domain name to be an exact reproduction of the complainant’s Chinese trademark in a domain name). Thus the Panel finds that the [<xn--googe-7nc.com>] domain name, henceforth the “disputed domain name”, is the same as the <googɩe.com> domain name for purposes of this proceeding.
A. Complainant
Complainant states that it was created in 1998 by Stanford Ph.D. candidates Larry Page and Sergey Brin. Since that time, Complainant’s search engine has become one of the most highly recognized Internet search services in the world. Complainant’s primary website is < www.google.com>. Complainant has rights in the GOOGLE mark through its registration in the United States in 2004. The mark is registered elsewhere around the world and it is famous.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its GOOGLE mark, as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely adding the “.com” generic top-level domain (gTLD).
According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use the GOOGLE mark, nor is Respondent commonly known by the disputed domain name. Further, Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as the resolving website redirects users to Complainant’s competitor, Microsoft Bing.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent attempts to attract users for commercial gain, redirecting users to Complainant’s competitor, financially benefiting from the redirection. Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual notice of Complainant’s rights, evidenced by the fame and notoriety of the GOOGLE mark. Finally, Respondent provided false information when registering the disputed domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the mark GOOGLE dating back to at least 2004 and uses it to provide a variety of services, in particular a popular Internet search engine.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2016.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The disputed domain name redirects users to Complainant’s competitor, Microsoft Bing. The WHOIS information is false.
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 disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s GOOGLE mark in its entirety (the “L” is a conversion in another font of the ASCII “L”), merely adding the “.com” gTLD. Swapping out a single letter for another through punycode and adding the “.com” gTLD is generally insufficient in differentiating a disputed domain name from the mark it incorporates under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See NIKE, Inc. and Nike Innovate, C.V. v. michal restl c/o Dynadot, FA1703001723952 (Forum May 11, 2017) (finding <nıke.com> [xn--nke-jua.com] confusingly similar to NIKE and noting, “Panels have determined that exchanging a letter in a mark for a Unicode character fails to distinguish a domain name for the purposes of a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis of confusing similarity”); see also Microsoft Corp. v. Harrington, FA1305319 (Forum Mar. 16, 2010) (finding <bıng.com> [xn--bng-jua.com] confusingly similar to BING and noting, “The Panel finds that exchanging one letter for another in the disputed domain name fails to prevent confusing similarity according to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), especially when the disputed domain name remains visually similar to Complainant’s mark”); see also Longo Brothers Fruit Markets Inc. v. John Obeye / DOMAIN MAY BE FOR SALE, CHECK AFTERNIC.COM, FA 1734634 (Forum July 17, 2017) (“[O]f course it is well established in prior UDRP cases that the addition of a ‘.com’ suffix is irrelevant when determining if a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark.”). Therefore the Panel finds that the disputed name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by a disputed domain name, the Panel may reference WHOIS information. See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent’s use of the same). Here, the WHOIS information identifies Respondent as “Krombopulos Michael”. Thus the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The disputed domain name redirects users to one of Complainant’s competitors. Using a disputed domain name only to host a website that redirects users to a complainant’s competitor is not a bona fide offering of goods and services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Invesco Ltd. v. Premanshu Rana, FA 1733167 (Forum July 10, 2017) (“Use of a domain name to divert Internet users to a competing website is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”). Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
Indeed, as already noted, the disputed domain name is used to redirect users to a competing website. Use of a disputed domain name to resolve to a website offering competing services is disruptive and shows bad faith registration and use. See Fitness International, LLC v. ALISTAIR SWODECK / VICTOR AND MURRAY, FA 1623644 (Forum July 9, 2015) (“Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to operate a website that purports to offer health club related services such as fitness experts, fitness models, fitness venues, exercise programs, and personal training, all of which are the exact services offered by Complainant. Doing so causes customer confusion, disrupts Complainant’s business, and demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”). The Panel therefore finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
Further, the WHOIS information is false: Complainant presents evidence showing that the street address given in the WHOIS does not exist, and that the name given in the WHOIS is that of a character from the animated TV show Rick & Morty. When a respondent provides false contact information, the Panel may consider this to find bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See CNU ONLINE Holdings, LLC v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA1504001614972 (Forum May 29, 2015) (“As the Panel sees that Respondent has provided false or misleading WHOIS information, the Panel finds bad faith in Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Finally, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark: the use of a non-ASCII character that is similar to the letter “L” in Complainant’s famous mark cannot be a coincidence or an innocent mistake. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) (“There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy.”); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”); 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). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <xn--googe-7nc.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: June 30, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page