Airbnb, Inc. v. Javier Boix / SQ
Claim Number: FA1803001778337
Complainant is Airbnb, Inc. (“Complainant”), San Francisco, California, USA, represented by David K. Caplan of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Javier Boix / SQ (“Respondent”), Montreal, Canada, represented by Moises Garcia, Havana, Cuba.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The disputed domain name at issue is <airbnbapi.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.
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.
Fernando Triana, Esq., as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 22, 2018; the Forum received payment on March 22, 2018.
On March 22, 2018, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <airbnbapi.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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 March 23, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 7, 2018 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@airbnbapi.com. Also, on March 23, 2018, 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.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on May 7, 2018.
Complainant submitted an Additional Submission that were received in a timely manner on May 10, 2018. Complainant submitted his documents in accordance with the Rule #7 of the Forum’s Supplemental Rules.
Respondent submitted an Additional Submission that were received in a timely manner on May 15, 2018. Complainant submitted his documents in accordance with the Rule #7 of the Forum’s Supplemental Rules.
On May 16, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Fernando Triana, Esq., 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
a. Complainant is a people-powered travel and hospitality service. Is a virtual community in which users can connect with each other and with unique properties and geographic locations throughout the world. Specifically, Complainant matches renters of temporary lodging with owners of rental properties, provides registered users with directories of rental properties, and property reviews and renter feedback.
b. Complainant owns the mark registration AIRBNB in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), in international classes 35, 38, 43, 45, 36, 42 and 45 since at least 2010.
c. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it contains the entire AIRBNB mark and adds the generic acronym “api” along with the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
d. Complainant’s mark AIRBNB is well known, since at least March 4, 2009.
e. Respondent host at the disputed domain name, a website to distribute unauthorized application programming interface (“API”) code, data, and information for which Complainant is the sole copyright owner and which Complainant has not intended or authorized for public distribution.
f. Respondent is using Complainant’s trademark as part of the disputed domain name to mislead visitors into thinking that: (a) Complainant is somehow connected to Respondent; or (b) Respondent has given visitors the right or ability to access, reproduce, and further distribute Complainant’s copyrighted API software or to access Complainant’s system, tools, or website using the information provided by Respondent.
g. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
h. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the mark.
i. Respondent also does not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
j. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to copy Complainant’s trademark protected logos (U.S. Registration Nos. 4,699,982, 4,962,977, and 4,978,461) in attempts to pass off as Complainant and trade off its good will for commercial gain.
k. Respondent enables visitors to gain access to Complainant’s online listings systems, payments systems, and similar structures at various endpoints.
l. Respondent is using the disputed domain name as the location of a website, which both facilitates the infringement of Complainant’s copyrights in its API software and misleads users as to the source or sponsorship of Respondent’s “services” by, including in the website’s title tab a copy of Complainant’s registered Bélo Logo, depicted in Complainant’s Rausch corporate color.
m. Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith.
n. Respondent registered the infringing domain name with Complainant’s mark in mind and with intent to cause confusion.
o. Further, Respondent’s use of Complainant’s marks on the resolving webpage and the similar color scheme, coupled with Complainant’s long-term use of the AIRBNB mark in commerce, makes it entirely clear that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to registering the disputed domain name.
B. Respondent
a. Respondent considers that the complaint is unfair as Complainant seems to be targeting specific domains allowing others to remain in business.
b. Respondent makes no contentions under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
c. Respondent had temporarily set up a copy of airbnbapi.org, previous settings.
d. Before any notice of the complaint, Respondent had been planning the launch of the website as a Wiki Site, which was done one day before the UDRP notice.
e. Respondent uses the domain name for entirely noncommercial purposes, contrary to Complainant’s unfounded assertions.
f. Respondent allows users to discuss how to better use Complainant’s API software.
g. Respondent had no intention to tarnish Complainant’s mark or harm Complainant in any way.
h. Respondent did not register the domain name in bad faith, as none of the Policy 4(b) factors apply.
i. Respondent never intended to sell the domain name and has never offered it for sale.
j. Respondent did not register the domain name to prevent Complainant from reflecting its mark.
k. Respondent registered the domain name to help Complainant, not disrupt its business.
l. Complainant offers no evidence that Respondent uses the domain name to attract Internet users for commercial gain.
m. Respondent uses the domain name for entirely noncommercial purposes.
n. Respondent displays a clear disclaimer on the resolving webpage, denouncing any affiliation with Complainant.
C. Additional Submissions
a. Complainant’s Additional Submission
i. Respondent registered a confusingly similar domain name that incorporates Complainant’s AIRBNB mark.
ii. Respondent used that domain name to host a website prominently featuring Complainant’s AIRBNB mark, Logo, and Rausch corporate color.
iii. Respondent used that website to facilitate infringement of Complainant’s copyrights in its software components.
iv. The UDRP Policy does not require Complainant to register or file complaints against every other confusingly similar domain name to assert its rights in this proceeding.
v. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and Respondent’s claims refer to fact occurred after the filing of the UDPR proceeding.
vi. The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
b. Respondent’s Additional Submission
i. Complainant “showed no interest” in registering other confusingly similar domains containing the words “AIRBNB” and “API”; hence, Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name does not prevent Complainant from registering or using a similar domain.
ii. Respondent has never engaged in a pattern of this type of behavior.
iii. Respondent provided proof that the new Wiki Site was being worked on for some time before it was launched and before being served of the UDRP proceeding.
iv. Regarding the Copyright of the API, Respondent copied the pages from airbnbapi.org.
v. There is no proof that Complainant owns the API.
1. Complainant owns the trademark AIRBNB in the United States of America, since before the disputed domain name was registered by Respondent.
2. Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s rights in the trademark AIRBNB, yet Respondent incorporated it in the disputed domain name. Thus, Respondent used the trademark AIRBNB to create a likelihood of confusion aimed to divert consumers to Respondent’s websites.
3. Respondent has never been commonly known by the disputed domain name or the trademark AIRBNB.
4. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant in any way: Complainant has never authorized, contracted, licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the trademark AIRBNB, nor is Respondent an authorized vendor, supplier or distributor of Complainant’s goods and/or services.
5. Before any notice, Respondent neither used the disputed domain name nor demonstrated that preparations have been made in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
6. Respondent has the intention to attract, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trademark disrupting Complainant’s business.
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.
This discussion, based on the evidentiary support submitted by the parties, will be developed as follows:
First of all, the Panel will determine whether or not the disputed domain name are identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which Complainant has rights. Secondly, the Panel will verify if Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and thirdly, the Panel will establish whether or not the disputed domain name have been registered and are being used in bad faith by Respondent.
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
Complainant contends to be the owner of trademark AIRBNB and the Bélo device trademark in the United States of America (i.e. Registration No. 3,890,025 for international class 35, registered on December 14, 2010 and Registration No. 4,978,461 for international classes 9, 35 and 42, registered on June 14, 2016) and in several other countries around the world, as per Annexes I to K and M to the Complaint; to identify online business directories featuring temporary lodging, among others.
a) Existence of a Trademark or Service Mark in Which the Complainant has Rights
Firstly, it is important to point out that Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the existence of a trademark or a service mark. The industrial property rights are only acquired by registration before the competent office in a number of many jurisdictions of the world.
The worldwide-accepted definition of a trademark, involves the concept of distinctive force as the most relevant element. Said force gives the sign the capability to identify the products or services of its owner and differentiate them from the product and services of other participants in the market.
When a sign is registered as a trademark, it is surrounded by a presumption of sufficient distinctive force, and the owner is granted with an exclusive right over the mark, which entitles him to prevent any third party from using the registered sign or any other sign confusingly similar to it.
However, the UDRP does not discriminate between registered and unregistered trademarks[i] and thus, it is well established that a Complainant does not need to own a registered trademark to invoke the Policy. It is sufficient in certain common law jurisdictions, such as the United States of America, that Complainant has rights over an unregistered trademark as to deserve legal protection, based solely on its use in commerce.
In this case, Complainant proved its rights in the trademark AIRBNB as per Annexes I to K and M to the Complaint.
This information appears to be incontestable and conclusive evidence of Complainant’s ownership of the cited trademarks and the exclusive right to use them in connection with the stated goods and services. The registration of a trademark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive[ii].
Thus, Complainant established its rights in the trademark AIRBNB[iii].
Therefore, the Panel concludes that Complainant has demonstrated rights in the trademark AIRBNB for purposes of Paragraph ¶ 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
b) Identity or Confusing Similarity Between the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant’s Trademark
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical to the trademark AIRBNB.
On the first place, before establishing whether or not the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s Trademark AIRBNB, the Panel wants to point out that the addition of generic top-level domain (“gTLD”), i.e., “.com,” “.biz,” “.edu,” “.net,” “.info,” “.org”, cannot be considered when determining if the registered domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the registered trademark[iv]. Neither the addition of country-code top-level domains (“ccTLD”), i.e., “.co,” “.de,” “.cr,” “.es,” nor the insertion of a gTLD has a distinctive function[v].
UDRP Panels have unanimously accepted that the inclusion of any gTLD, in a disputed domain name is not a factor in analyzing whether a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark in which Complainant asserts rights. In the Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Walsucks, D2000-0477 (WIPO July 20, 2000), the Panel stated that:
“[T]he addition of the generic top-level domain (gTLD) name ‘.com’ is without legal significance since use of a gTLD is required of domain name registrants, ‘.com’ is one of only several such gTLDs, and ‘.com’ does not serve to identify a specific enterprise as a source of goods or services.”
Furthermore, the Panel considers that the reproduction of the trademark AIRBNB, by the disputed domain name, is sufficient ground to establish that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark[vi], mainly since the disputed domain name reproduce entirely Complainant’s trademark without any other distinctive elements. Consequently, consumers will assume that the owner of the disputed domain name is Complainant.
In fact, including the acronym “API” at the end of the disputed domain name is not enough to make the disputed domain name different from the trademark AIRBNB, since API is the acronym for “application programming interface”.
Consequently, the acronym “API” does not add distinctiveness or a source of origin to the domain name. This addition rather than distinguishing the disputed domain name from Complainant’s trademarks makes it confusingly similar to the trademark. Hence, the disputed domain name should be deemed as confusingly similar to the registered trademarks[vii].
As per this reasoning, the Panel finds that, in the present case, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks and thus, the requirement set forth in Paragraph ¶ 4(a)(i) of the Policy is duly complied with.
a) Prima Facie Case.
Regarding this second element of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, UDRP Panels have unanimously consented that requiring Complainant to prove the lack of rights or legitimate interests of Respondent in the disputed domain name is often an impossible task: it is not only a negative but also demands access to information that is mostly within the knowledge of Respondent[viii].
In Julian Barnes v. Old Barn Studios Ltd., D2001-0121 (WIPO Mar. 30, 2001), the Panel stated that:
“Is the Respondent required to adduce any such evidence, if the onus is on the Complainant to prove the three elements of paragraph 4 of the Policy? While the overall burden of proof is on the Complainant, this element involves the Complainant proving matters, which are peculiarly within the knowledge of the Respondent. It involves the Complainant in the often impossible task of proving a negative. In the Panel’s view the correct approach is as follows: the Complainant makes the allegation and puts forward what he can in support (e.g. he has rights to the name, the Respondent has no rights to the name of which he is aware, he has not given any permission to the Respondent). Unless the allegation is manifestly misconceived, the Respondent has a case to answer and that is where paragraph 4(c) of the Policy comes in. If the Respondent then fails to demonstrate his rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, the complaint succeeds under this head”.
Therefore, a Complainant is required to make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once this prima facie case is made, the burden of production shifts to Respondent, who must come forward with concrete evidence of its rights or legitimate interests[ix]. If Respondent fails to do so, Complainant is deemed to have met the second element of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because of the following: i) Respondent has not been authorized by Complainant to use the trademark AIRBNB in any manner; ii) Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name; iii) Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services, because the disputed domain name displays the “Bélo” logo and Complainant’s official corporate color, “Rausch,”, which cannot be deemed as a bona fide offering; and iv) Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
The Panel accepts these assertions as a prima facie case made by Complainant that shifts the burden of production to Respondent.
b) Respondent’s Rights or Legitimate Interests in the Disputed Domain Name.
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy includes an enunciative listing of circumstances that prove Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name:
(i) before any notice of the dispute, Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
In the response, Respondent asserts that the website hosted in the disputed domain name is a Wiki site which in summary is a participative website, which according to Respondent, was launched one day prior to the notice of the current dispute. Hence, as per the response, Respondent’s use was prior to any dispute and in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
However, in the additional submission, Complainant shows how Respondent’s use, was done with the Bélo logo and the corporate Rauch color and that Respondent made public copyrighted code from Complainant.
To legitimate the use of the infringing code, Respondent made two statements: i) that the code was copied from another infringing site, and ii) that Complainant has not shown the rights on the code, since Complainant has not made it public.
The Panel considers that the use given by Respondent cannot be qualified as a bona fide offering of goods or services, since:
1. Respondent tries to mislead the Panel into thinking that the logo use in the website is original, while before any notice of the dispute, the logo used by Respondent infringed both Complainant’s copyrights and trademark rights. Hence, Respondent tried to confuse internet users, creating an idea of sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement. Thus, is not possible to legitimate any deceiving conduct as a bona fide offering of goods or services.
2. According to Complainant, the website hosted at the disputed domain name, distributes unauthorized API code, data, and information for which Complainant is the sole copyright owner and which Complainant has not intended or authorized for public distribution. Respondent stated that there is no proof that Complainant owns the API. Nonetheless, Respondent also specified to have copied the API from an infringing domain name. Thus, even if it is not clear that Complainant owns the API, the Panel is convinced that Respondent did not legally acquire it. Hence, is not possible to legitimate any unauthorized reproduction of code as a bona fide offering of goods or services.
Accordingly, even if Respondent used or made demonstrable preparations to use, prior to being served of the complaint, said use does not fall within the category of bona fide offering of goods or services.
Moreover, there is no evidence to support that Respondent is and/or has been commonly known by the disputed domain name.
Finally, is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue, since:
1. Respondent intended to mislead consumers by using Complainant’s Bélo logo and Rauch corporate color in the website hosted at the disputed domain name.
2. Respondent use of Complainant’s trademark as part of the disputed domain name also misleads visitors into thinking that Complainant is somehow connected to Respondent.
3. Without authorization and illegally obtaining the information, Respondent has given visitors the right or ability to access, reproduce, and further distribute Complainant’s API software or to access Complainant’s system, tools, or website using the information provided by Respondent.
Consequently, the use of the disputed domain name is misleading and does not qualify as a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
Finally, Respondent tries to legitimize its selection for the disputed domain name by including a disclaimer on the resolving webpage, denouncing any affiliation with Complainant. However, the disclaimer within the resolving site is not enough to prevent consumer’s confusion[x]. In fact, the user has already been misled when entering the website since the disputed domain name reproduces entirely a third-party’s trademark.
Therefore, the second requirement of paragraph 4(b) of the Policy is met.
According to paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
(1) Circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or has acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(2) Respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(3) Respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(4) By using the domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his/her website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of his/her website or location or of a product or service on his/her website or location.
This Panel deems that the mere fact of knowingly incorporating a third-party’s well-known trademark in a domain name constitutes registration in bad faith[xi]. See Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. Jorgeariel Figueroa Rodríguez, WIPO Case No. D2011-1311, where the panel found: “The selection of this word is certainly not a random decision; the Panel finds that it is a consequence of Respondent’s prior knowledge of the mark. This fact, by itself, is registration in bad faith in the Panel’s opinion”.
In fact, the Panel considers that Complainant’s trademark is well-known, according to the evidence filed:
1. In Annex F to the Complaint:
1.1. Article dated May 27, 2015 by Alexia Tsotsis: “Airbnb Hopes To Have Almost A Million Stays A Night By Summer” (https://techcrunch.com).
“The last confirmed valuation of Airbnb was $13 billion, half of what Marriott is worth”.
“one fifth of the 600k people who stayed in Brazil at the 2014 World Cup stayed in an Airbnb”.
1.2. Article dated July 11, 2016 by Max Chafkin and Eric Newcomer: “Airbnb Now Has 100 Million Users and MoreGrown-Up Problems” (https://skift.com).
“With a valuation of $30 billion (https://skift.com/2016/06/28/airbnb- seeks-new-funding-round-that-would-value-it-at-30-billion/), Airbnb
is worth about 30 percent more than the world’s biggest hotel
company, Hilton, and nearly 8 times more than its closest
competitor, HomeAway, which Expedia bought for $3.9 billion last
year”.
2. In Annex G to the Complaint:
2.1. Article dated September 19, 2016 by Gabrielle Chung: “Take a Tour Inside Neil Patrick Harris’ $6.295 Million Airbnb”.
2.2. Article dated August 2, 2016 by Jordi Lippe-McGraw: “Inside the $50 Million Airbnb Where Kourtney Kardashian Stayed”
Hence, it is not casual that Respondent chose the trademark for the disputed domain name and used Complainant’s API code, data, and information. The publication of the API code and other programing material disrupts Complainant’s business and infringes Complainant’s rights.
Actually, the Panel considers that if the real intention of Respondent was to create a Wiki site and not to disrupt Complaint’s business, it could have done it without using Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain name, the Bélo logo and Rauch color within the site and the API information illegally obtained.
Consequently, the incorporation of Complainant’s well-known trademark and the continued publication of API code obtained from an unauthorized party has the ability to disrupt Complainant’s business, which is indicative of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Therefore, the three elements of the Policy 4(a) are satisfied in the present case in respect to Respondent of 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 disputed domain name <airbnbapi.com> be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Fernando Triana, Esq., Panelist
Dated: May 29, 2018
[i] See MatchNet PLC. v. MAC Trading, D2000-0205 (WIPO May 11, 2000); see also British Broad. Corp. v. Renteria, D2000-0050 (WIPO March 23, 2000).
[ii] See Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO May 5, 2002).
[iii] See Expedia, Inc. v. Tan, FA 991075 (Forum June 29, 2007) (“As the [complainant’s] mark is registered with the USPTO, [the] complainant has met the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Royal Bank of Scot. Group plc & Nat. Westminster Bank plc v. Soloviov, FA 787983 (Forum November 3, 2006) (“Complainant’s trademark registrations for the NATWEST mark with the United Kingdom Patent Office . . . establish Complainant’s rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i)”.); see also Google, Inc. v. DktBot.org, FA 286993 (Forum August 4, 2004) (“finding that the complainant had established rights in the GOOGLE mark through its holding of numerous trademark registrations around the world”).
[iv] See Altec Industries, Inc. v. I 80 Equipment, FA 1437753 (Forum May 18, 2012).
[v] See YottaMark, Inc. v. Lukasz Chudy, FA 1392357 (Forum July 15, 2011)
[vi] See ER Marks, Inc. and QVC, Inc. v. Hansmann, FA 1381755 (Forum May 6, 2011); see also Oki Data Ams., Inc. v. ASD, Inc., D2001-0903 (WIPO November 6, 2001).
[vii] See Forest Laboratories, Inc. v. candrug, D2008-0382 (WIPO April 24, 2008) (“when a respondent merely adds generic or descriptive terms to a distinctive trademark, the domain name should be considered confusingly similar to the registered trademark”.); see also Bayer Aktiengesellschaft v. Monseen, D2003-0275 (WIPO May 30, 2003).
[viii] See Arla Foods amba v. Bel Arbor / Domain Admin, PrivacyProtect.org, D2012-0875 (WIPO June 7, 2012); see also F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Bargin Register, Inc. - Client Servs., D2012-0474 (WIPO April 24, 2012).
[ix] See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO August 1, 2000).
[x] See Garry Kasparov v. Sevan Muradian, FA1306001503225 (Forum July 16, 2013)
[xi] See F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Bargin Register, Inc. - Client Services, supra.
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page