Google Inc. v. Akhil Mishra / Rajeev / Latika Sharma / Satyendra Kumar Pandey/ Satendra Kumar / Jameet / Sayni Rana
Claim Number: FA1504001617405
Complainant is Google Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Chantal Z. Hwang of Cooley LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Akhil Mishra / Rajeev / Latika Sharma / Satyendra Kumar Pandey/ Satendra Kumar / Jameet / Sayni Rana (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <gmailphonenumber.com>, <gmailhelpsupport.com>, <gmail-password-recovery.com>, <gmailservicehelp.com>, <gmailnotworking.com>, and <forgotmygmailpassword.com>, registered with BigRock Solutions Ltd; and <gmailcustomerservices.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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 30, 2015; the Forum received payment on May 1, 2015.
On May 1, 2015 GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <gmailcustomerservices.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 May 2, 2015, BigRock Solutions Ltd confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <gmailphonenumber.com>, <gmailhelpsupport.com>, <gmail-password-recovery.com>, <gmailservicehelp.com>, <gmailnotworking.com>, and <forgotmygmailpassword.com> domain names are registered with BigRock Solutions Ltd and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. BigRock Solutions Ltd has verified that Respondent is bound by the BigRock Solutions Ltd 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 12, 2015, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 1, 2015 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@gmailcustomerservices.com, postmaster@gmailphonenumber.com, postmaster@gmailhelpsupport.com, postmaster@gmail-password-recovery.com, postmaster@gmailservicehelp.com, postmaster@gmailnotworking.com, postmaster@forgotmygmailpassword.com. Also on May 12, 2015, 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 5, 2015, 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.
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant contends as follows:
Complainant owns a number of trademark registrations for the GMAIL mark around the world, including one with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 3,150,462, registered Apr. 2, 2004). The mark is used on or in connection with the provision of email and electronic messaging services that are integrated with various other Google products and services.
The <gmailcustomerservices.com>, <gmailphonenumber.com>, <gmailhelpsupport.com>, <gmail-password-recovery.com>, <gmailservicehelp.com>, <gmailnotworking.com>, and <forgotmygmailpassword.com> domain names are confusingly similar to the GMAIL mark because they contain the entire mark and add descriptive terms, namely “password,” “help,” “service,” “recovery,” “forgot,” and “phone number,” along with the generic top-level domain “.com.”
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests. Respondent is not commonly known as any of the disputed domain names, nor is Respondent a licensee of Complainant. Further, Respondent is using the domain names in an attempt to both pass itself off as Complainant and run a phishing scheme for personal information of confused Internet users.
Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use. Respondent is attempting to commercially profit from a likelihood of confusion. Also, Respondent is running a phishing scheme in bad faith, and had actual knowledge of Complainant’s trademark rights.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS
In the instant proceedings, Complainant alleges that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.”
In support of its contention, Complainant shows that the webpages addressed by the at-issue domain names contain near identical content. In light of the forgoing and a review of the full record, the Panel finds that there is colorable evidence supporting a conclusion that the nominal Respondents are all one-in-the-same. Importantly, no Response was filed and there is no contrary evidence on the records indicating Respondents are not a single person or entity. Furthermore, Complainant would be unnecessarily burdened by having to expend the additional resources required to re-file an action as to any dismissed party or parties. Therefore, this action should proceed as to all nominal respondents pursuant to Rule ¶3(c). See The Valspar Corp. v. Zhou Zhiliang /zhouzhiliang / Zhiliang Zhou / Eric Chow / Visspa Ltd., FA1008001339342 (Nat’l Arb. Forum Sep. 28, 2010) (“The Panel concludes that the disputed domain names are controlled by the same entity based on the similar content of the disputed domain names, the similarity of the sites they resolve to, and the similarities in the WHOIS information.”); see also, U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc. v. Elias Skander / Jean Lucas / Domcharme Group et al., FA1469349 (Nat. Arb. Forum December 28, 2012 (“In the absence of any response, Panel finds that Complainant has presented sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable inference to be made that the disputed domain names are controlled by the same person or entity.”)
Complainant has rights in the GMAIL mark through its registration of such mark with the USPTO.
Respondents are all one in the same entity and referred to as “Respondent” throughout this decision.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain names after Complainant acquired rights in its relevant trademark.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and to run a phishing scheme aimed at obtaining the personal information of unsuspecting Internet users. Webpages addressed by the at-issue domain names suggest an affiliation with Complainant by labeling each page with headers such as “Gmail Support Number,” “Gmail Password Recovery,” “Gmail Helpline Number,” “Gmail Technical Support,” “Gmail Customer Service,” “Gmail Account Recovery,” “Gmail Tech Support,” and “Gmail Customer Service Number.” The content on such webpages exposes an overall scheme aimed obtaining the personal information of Internet users.
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(e), 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 and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
The at-issue domain names are each confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s ownership of USPTO trademark registrations for the GMAIL trademark demonstrates its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶4(a)(i). Complainant’s rights exist notwithstanding that Respondent may operate outside the jurisdiction of the trademark’s registrar. See Microsoft Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (“Complainant has established rights in the MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.”); see also, Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001) (finding that the Policy does not require that the mark be registered in the country in which the respondent operates; therefore it is sufficient that the complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction).
Respondent forms each at-issue domain name by adding a single generic word, (“password,” “help,” “service,” “recovery,” “forgot,” or “phone number,”) to Complainant’s GMAIL trademark and appending the top-level domain name “.com” to the resulting string. The ensuing differences between Complainant’s trademark and each of the at-issue domain names are insufficient to distinguish any of the domain names from Complainant’s trademark for the purposes of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds that the <gmailcustomerservices.com>, <gmailphonenumber.com>, <gmailhelpsupport.com>, <gmail-password-recovery.com>, <gmailservicehelp.com>, <gmailnotworking.com>, and <forgotmygmailpassword.com> domain name are each confusingly similar to Complainant’s GMAIL mark. See Google Inc. v. N/A/ k gautam, FA 1524232 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2013) (finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the at-issue mark despite the misspelling of the mark by omitting letters, the addition of a generic term, and the addition of a generic top-level domain). See Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of the complainant combined with a generic word or term); see also, OL Inc. v. Morgan, FA 1349260 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 4, 2010) (concluding that the addition of the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark).
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 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, absent evidence of Policy ¶4(c) circumstances Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain names. 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 any of the at-issue domain names.
WHOIS information for the at-issue domain names lists Akhil Mishra / Rajeev / Latika Sharma / Satyendra Kumar Pandey/ Satendra Kumar / Jameet / Sayni Rana as the domain names’ respective registrants and there is nothing in the record that otherwise suggests Respondent is commonly known by any or all of the <gmailcustomerservices.com>, <gmailphonenumber.com>, <gmailhelpsupport.com>, <gmail-password-recovery.com>, <gmailservicehelp.com>, <gmailnotworking.com>, and <forgotmygmailpassword.com> domain names. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by any of the at-issue domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where the respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission from the complainant to use the trademarked name).
Respondent’s <gmailcustomerservices.com>, <gmailphonenumber.com>, <gmailhelpsupport.com>, <gmail-password-recovery.com>, <gmailservicehelp.com>, <gmailnotworking.com>, and <forgotmygmailpassword.com> domain names each resolve to webpages that promote a phishing scheme aimed at obtaining the personal information of unsuspecting Internet users. Webpages addressed by the at-issue domain names suggest an affiliation with Complainant by labeling each page with headers such as “Gmail Support Number,” “Gmail Password Recovery,” “Gmail Helpline Number,” “Gmail Technical Support,” “Gmail Customer Service,” “Gmail Account Recovery,” “Gmail Tech Support,” and “Gmail Customer Service Number.” The content on such webpages exposes an overall scheme aimed obtaining the personal information of Internet users. Using the domain names in this manner 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 Blackstone TM L.L.C. v. Mita Irelant Ltd., FA 1314998 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2010) (“The Panel finds that Respondent’s attempt to “phish” for users’ personal information is neither a bona fide offering of goods and services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also, Mortgage Research Center LLC v. Miranda, FA 993017 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 9, 2007) (“Because [the] respondent in this case is also attempting to pass itself off as [the] complainant, presumably for financial gain, the Panel finds the respondent is not using the <mortgageresearchcenter.org> domain name for 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).”).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden under Policy ¶4(a)(ii) and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of each of the at-issue domain names.
Each of the at-issue domain names was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below, Policy ¶ 4(b) specific bad faith circumstances, as well as other circumstance, are present which compel the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith in registering and using each of the domain names pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
First as mentioned above, Respondent’s display of the GMAIL mark on webpages addressed by the confusingly similar domain names is designed to lead Internet users to believe that such webpages are sponsored by or affiliated with Complainant. Respondent is likely intent on profiting through such use. As also mentioned above, Respondent displays the GMAIL mark on these webpages. Respondent’s use of the domain names in this manner demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv). See Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting). Moreover, to the extent that Respondent may actually be conducting some kind of support business at the addressed webpages such business is in competition with Complainant’s own support services. Using the trademark laden domain names to compete with Complainant demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶4(b)(iv). See Yahoo! Inc. v. Mohit Arora / E-squad Tech. FA1311001531666 (Nat’l Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2013) (“The Panel notes that Respondent’s <yahootechnicalhelp.com> domain name resolves to a webpage that providing technical services under ‘Yahoo Technical Help’ … a respondent’s use of a disputed domain name to offer competing services for its own commercial gain evidences bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).
Next, the content displayed on the webpages addressed by the at-issue domain names reveals Respondent’s plan to pass itself off as Complainant to obtain visitors’ personal information including confidential passwords. Respondent’s bad faith is shown by this phishing scheme. This scheme, which is disruptive to Complainant’s business, demonstrates bad faith registration and use of the at-issue domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Wells Fargo & Co. v. Maniac State, FA 608239 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 19, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use where the respondent was using the <wellsbankupdate.com> domain name in order to fraudulently acquire the personal and financial information of the complainant’s customers).
Finally, Respondent registered each of the <gmailcustomerservices.com>, <gmailphonenumber.com>, <gmailhelpsupport.com>, <gmail-password-recovery.com>, <gmailservicehelp.com>, <gmailnotworking.com>, and <forgotmygmailpassword.com> domain names knowing that Complainant had trademark rights in the GMAIL mark. Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s trademark and from Respondent’s multiple registrations of domain names containing Complainant’s GMAIL mark. Given the forgoing, it is clear that Respondent intentionally registered the at-issue domain names precisely to improperly exploit their trademark value, rather than for some benign reason. Respondent’s prior knowledge of Complainant's trademark further indicates that Respondent registered and used the <gmailcustomerservices.com>, <gmailphonenumber.com>, <gmailhelpsupport.com>, <gmail-password-recovery.com>, <gmailservicehelp.com>, <gmailnotworking.com>, and <forgotmygmailpassword.com> domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Nat. Arb. 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").
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <gmailcustomerservices.com>, <gmailphonenumber.com>, <gmailhelpsupport.com>, <gmail-password-recovery.com>, <gmailservicehelp.com>, <gmailnotworking.com>, <forgotmygmailpassword.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: June 9, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page