Google Inc. v. Media Enseguida SA / Raul Gomez; Integrated Media Services SA / Juan Martin Vega; Bocas Grande Systems SA / Gerado Gilbrano; BGSR Media Systems SA / Jean Marie Bergeron; PrivacyProtect.org / Domain Admin
Claim Number: FA1111001413915
Complainant is Google Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Gavin L. Charlston of Cooley LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Media Enseguida SA / Raul Gomez; Integrated Media Services SA / Juan Martin Vega; Bocas Grande Systems SA / Gerado Gilbrano; BGSR Media Systems SA / Jean Marie Bergeron; PrivacyProtect.org / Domain Admin (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <dowloadyoutubevideos.com>, <jyoutube.com>, <khmeryoutube.com>, <lisenttoyoutube.com>, <listentiyoutube.com>, <listentotyoutube.com>, <listentoyourtube.com>, <pinoyoutube.com>, <tyoutube.com>, <www0youtube.com>, <www3youtube.com>, <wwwiyoutube.com>, <wwwyoutuble.com>, <yooutube.com>, <you7tube.com>, <youbtube.com>, <youhtube.com>, <youitube.com>, <youstube.com>, <youtbue.com>, <youtne.com>, <youtoube.com>, <youttube.com>, <youtub3.com>, <youtubae.com>, <youtubbe.com>, <youtubec.com>, <youtubefreemovies.com>, <youtubeg.com>, <youtubemusicvideo.com>, <youtubemusique.com>, <youtubemyspace.com>, <youtubenaruto.com>, <youtubeporns.com>, <youtubeproxy.net>, <youtubev.com>, <youtubge.com>, <youtubhe.com>, <youtubr.com>, <youtubube.com>, <youtubue.com>, <youtubve.com>, <youtuby.com>, <youtune.com>, <yoututbe.com>, <youtuube.com>, <youtuyoutube.com>, <youxtube.com>, <youyube.com>, and <yutub.com>, registered with Power Brand Center Corp.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on November 2, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on November 3, 2011.
On November 10, 2011, Power Brand Center Corp. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <dowloadyoutubevideos.com>, <jyoutube.com>, <khmeryoutube.com>, <lisenttoyoutube.com>, <listentiyoutube.com>, <listentotyoutube.com>, <listentoyourtube.com>, <pinoyoutube.com>, <tyoutube.com>, <www0youtube.com>, <www3youtube.com>, <wwwiyoutube.com>, <wwwyoutuble.com>, <yooutube.com>, <you7tube.com>, <youbtube.com>, <youhtube.com>, <youitube.com>, <youstube.com>, <youtbue.com>, <youtne.com>, <youtoube.com>, <youttube.com>, <youtub3.com>, <youtubae.com>, <youtubbe.com>, <youtubec.com>, <youtubefreemovies.com>, <youtubeg.com>, <youtubemusicvideo.com>, <youtubemusique.com>, <youtubemyspace.com>, <youtubenaruto.com>, <youtubeporns.com>, <youtubeproxy.net>, <youtubev.com>, <youtubge.com>, <youtubhe.com>, <youtubr.com>, <youtubube.com>, <youtubue.com>, <youtubve.com>, <youtuby.com>, <youtune.com>, <yoututbe.com>, <youtuube.com>, <youtuyoutube.com>, <youxtube.com>, <youyube.com>, and <yutub.com> domain names are registered with Power Brand Center Corp. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Power Brand Center Corp. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Power Brand Center 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 November 15, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 5, 2011 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@dowloadyoutubevideos.com, postmaster@jyoutube.com, postmaster@khmeryoutube.com, postmaster@lisenttoyoutube.com, postmaster@listentiyoutube.com, postmaster@listentotyoutube.com, postmaster@listentoyourtube.com, postmaster@pinoyoutube.com, postmaster@tyoutube.com, postmaster@www0youtube.com, postmaster@www3youtube.com, postmaster@wwwiyoutube.com, postmaster@wwwyoutuble.com, postmaster@yooutube.com, postmaster@you7tube.com, postmaster@youbtube.com, postmaster@youhtube.com, postmaster@youitube.com, postmaster@youstube.com, postmaster@youtbue.com, postmaster@youtne.com, postmaster@youtoube.com, postmaster@youttube.com, postmaster@youtub3.com, postmaster@youtubae.com, postmaster@youtubbe.com, postmaster@youtubec.com, postmaster@youtubefreemovies.com, postmaster@youtubeg.com, postmaster@youtubemusicvideo.com, postmaster@youtubemusique.com, postmaster@youtubemyspace.com, postmaster@youtubenaruto.com, postmaster@youtubeporns.com, postmaster@youtubeproxy.net, postmaster@youtubev.com, postmaster@youtubge.com, postmaster@youtubhe.com, postmaster@youtubr.com, postmaster@youtubube.com, postmaster@youtubue.com, postmaster@youtubve.com, postmaster@youtuby.com, postmaster@youtune.com, postmaster@yoututbe.com, postmaster@youtuube.com, postmaster@youtuyoutube.com, postmaster@youxtube.com, postmaster@youyube.com, and postmaster@yutub.com. Also on November 15, 2011, 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 National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On December 13, 2011, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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 National Arbitration 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <dowloadyoutubevideos.com>, <jyoutube.com>, <khmeryoutube.com>, <lisenttoyoutube.com>, <listentiyoutube.com>, <listentotyoutube.com>, <listentoyourtube.com>, <pinoyoutube.com>, <tyoutube.com>, <www0youtube.com>, <www3youtube.com>, <wwwiyoutube.com>, <wwwyoutuble.com>, <yooutube.com>, <you7tube.com>, <youbtube.com>, <youhtube.com>, <youitube.com>, <youstube.com>, <youtbue.com>, <youtne.com>, <youtoube.com>, <youttube.com>, <youtub3.com>, <youtubae.com>, <youtubbe.com>, <youtubec.com>, <youtubefreemovies.com>, <youtubeg.com>, <youtubemusicvideo.com>, <youtubemusique.com>, <youtubemyspace.com>, <youtubenaruto.com>, <youtubeporns.com>, <youtubeproxy.net>, <youtubev.com>, <youtubge.com>, <youtubhe.com>, <youtubr.com>, <youtubube.com>, <youtubue.com>, <youtubve.com>, <youtuby.com>, <youtune.com>, <yoututbe.com>, <youtuube.com>, <youtuyoutube.com>, <youxtube.com>, <youyube.com>, and <yutub.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s YOUTUBE mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <dowloadyoutubevideos.com>, <jyoutube.com>, <khmeryoutube.com>, <lisenttoyoutube.com>, <listentiyoutube.com>, <listentotyoutube.com>, <listentoyourtube.com>, <pinoyoutube.com>, <tyoutube.com>, <www0youtube.com>, <www3youtube.com>, <wwwiyoutube.com>, <wwwyoutuble.com>, <yooutube.com>, <you7tube.com>, <youbtube.com>, <youhtube.com>, <youitube.com>, <youstube.com>, <youtbue.com>, <youtne.com>, <youtoube.com>, <youttube.com>, <youtub3.com>, <youtubae.com>, <youtubbe.com>, <youtubec.com>, <youtubefreemovies.com>, <youtubeg.com>, <youtubemusicvideo.com>, <youtubemusique.com>, <youtubemyspace.com>, <youtubenaruto.com>, <youtubeporns.com>, <youtubeproxy.net>, <youtubev.com>, <youtubge.com>, <youtubhe.com>, <youtubr.com>, <youtubube.com>, <youtubue.com>, <youtubve.com>, <youtuby.com>, <youtune.com>, <yoututbe.com>, <youtuube.com>, <youtuyoutube.com>, <youxtube.com>, <youyube.com>, and <yutub.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <dowloadyoutubevideos.com>, <jyoutube.com>, <khmeryoutube.com>, <lisenttoyoutube.com>, <listentiyoutube.com>, <listentotyoutube.com>, <listentoyourtube.com>, <pinoyoutube.com>, <tyoutube.com>, <www0youtube.com>, <www3youtube.com>, <wwwiyoutube.com>, <wwwyoutuble.com>, <yooutube.com>, <you7tube.com>, <youbtube.com>, <youhtube.com>, <youitube.com>, <youstube.com>, <youtbue.com>, <youtne.com>, <youtoube.com>, <youttube.com>, <youtub3.com>, <youtubae.com>, <youtubbe.com>, <youtubec.com>, <youtubefreemovies.com>, <youtubeg.com>, <youtubemusicvideo.com>, <youtubemusique.com>, <youtubemyspace.com>, <youtubenaruto.com>, <youtubeporns.com>, <youtubeproxy.net>, <youtubev.com>, <youtubge.com>, <youtubhe.com>, <youtubr.com>, <youtubube.com>, <youtubue.com>, <youtubve.com>, <youtuby.com>, <youtune.com>, <yoututbe.com>, <youtuube.com>, <youtuyoutube.com>, <youxtube.com>, <youyube.com>, and <yutub.com> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Google Inc., acquired YouTube, LLC in 2006, and was assigned all of its trademarks in 2007. Complainant uses the YOUTUBE mark as a video sharing service that allows Internet users to discover, watch, and share originally-created videos at the <youtube.com> website. Complainant submits numerous worldwide trademark registrations that it owns for the YOUTUBE mark. In its spreadsheet of trademark registrations, Complainant only provides filing dates for its registrations, some of which are as follows:
1. United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g., Reg. No. 3,525,802 filed January 30, 2006);
2. IP Australia (“IPA”) (e.g., Reg. No. 897,049 filed March 1, 2006);
3. Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (“IMPI”) (e.g., Reg. No. 959,140 filed July 14, 2006); and
4. World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 897049 filed March 1, 2006).
Respondent registered the disputed domain names between November 3, 2005 and September 25, 2009. All of the identified domain names redirect Internet users to <videorewardspace.com>, which features a logo similar to Complainant’s and offers “prizes” if a user completes a short survey and provides personal information.
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."
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.”).
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.
Preliminary Issue: Multiple Respondents
In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) 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.” The Panel was persuaded by Complainant’s submitted evidence, the fact that all of the disputed domain names were registered with Power Brand Center Corp., and the fact that all of the domain names resolve to the exact same survey website. Therefore, the Panel finds that the a single entity owns and controls all of the disputed domain names.
Complainant presents evidence indicating that it owns numerous trademark registrations for its YOUTUBE mark, including the following:
USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,525,802 filed January 30, 2006);
IPA (e.g., Reg. No. 897,049 filed March 1, 2006);
IMPI (e.g., Reg. No. 959,140 filed July 14, 2006); and
WIPO (e.g., Reg. No. 897049 filed March 1, 2006).
The Panel finds that such evidence clearly establishes Complainant’s rights in the mark as of its original filing date with the USPTO of January 30, 2006. See Google, Inc. v. DktBot.org, FA 286993 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 4, 2004) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the GOOGLE mark through its holding of numerous trademark registrations around the world); see also Hershey Co. v. Reaves, FA 967818 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 8, 2007) (finding that the complainant’s rights in the KISSES trademark through registration of the mark with the USPTO “date back to the filing date of the trademark application and predate [the] respondent’s registration”).
Complainant further contends that it owns rights in the YOUTUBE mark dating back to its launch of service in April of 2005. However, the Panel finds that Complainant’s evidence of common law rights and secondary meaning in its mark are not sufficient under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Hugo Daniel Barbaca Bejinha v. Whois Guard Protected, FA 836538 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 28, 2006) (failing to find common law rights where the complainant provided little evidence showing the extent of its use of the mark over the three years that the complainant claimed to have been using the mark); see also Occidental Hoteles Mgmt., S.A., & Corictal II, S.A. v. Hargrave Arts, LLC, FA 959645 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 21, 2007) (finding that the complainant did not submit sufficient evidence showing that its OCCIDENTAL mark had acquired the necessary secondary meaning for it to establish common law rights pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Because Complainant owns valid trademarks for the YOUTUBE mark, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in its mark through those trademark registrations, which is all that is required under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant argues that all of the <dowloadyoutubevideos.com>, <jyoutube.com>, <khmeryoutube.com>, <lisenttoyoutube.com>, <listentiyoutube.com>, <listentotyoutube.com>, <listentoyourtube.com>, <pinoyoutube.com>, <tyoutube.com>, <www0youtube.com>, <www3youtube.com>, <wwwiyoutube.com>, <wwwyoutuble.com>, <yooutube.com>, <you7tube.com>, <youbtube.com>, <youhtube.com>, <youitube.com>, <youstube.com>, <youtbue.com>, <youtne.com>, <youtoube.com>, <youttube.com>, <youtub3.com>, <youtubae.com>, <youtubbe.com>, <youtubec.com>, <youtubefreemovies.com>, <youtubeg.com>, <youtubemusicvideo.com>, <youtubemusique.com>, <youtubemyspace.com>, <youtubenaruto.com>, <youtubeporns.com>, <youtubeproxy.net>, <youtubev.com>, <youtubge.com>, <youtubhe.com>, <youtubr.com>, <youtubube.com>, <youtubue.com>, <youtubve.com>, <youtuby.com>, <youtune.com>, <yoututbe.com>, <youtuube.com>, <youtuyoutube.com>, <youxtube.com>, <youyube.com>, and <yutub.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s YOUTUBE mark. Complainant notes that the domain names either omit or add letters and numbers to its mark, omit the period after the “www,” add generic terms to the mark, and add the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” or “.net.” Complainant contends that the use of misspellings of its mark and typographical errors does not alleviate a finding of confusing similarity where each domain name contains a version of its mark as the main component of the domain name. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names, containing generic terms, the addition or removal of letters and numbers, the omission of the period, and the addition of a gTLD, fall squarely within the confines of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Am. Online, Inc. v. Oxford Univ., FA 104132 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 19, 2002) (finding several domain names that added the numeral “7” or the term “seven” to the complainant’s AOL mark were confusingly similar to the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Valpak Direct Mktg. Sys., Inc. v. Manila Indus., Inc., D2006-0714 (WIPO Aug. 17, 2006) (finding the <vallpak.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the VALPAK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).); see also see also Pfizer Inc. v. BargainName.com, D2005-0299 (WIPO Apr. 28, 2005) (holding that the <pfzer.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s PFIZER mark, as the respondent simply omitted the letter “i”); see also Dow Jones & Co., Inc. v. Powerclick, Inc., D2000-1259 (WIPO Dec. 1, 2000) (holding that the deliberate introduction of errors or changes, such as the addition of a fourth “w” or the omission of periods or other such “generic” typos do not change respondent’s infringement on a core trademark held by the complainant); see also Bank of Am. Corp. v. InterMos, FA 95092 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 1, 2000) (finding that the respondent’s domain name <wwwbankofamerica.com> is confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered trademark BANK OF AMERICA because it “takes advantage of a typing error (eliminating the period between the www and the domain name) that users commonly make when searching on the Internet”); see also 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 Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant has alleged that Respondent does not possess rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Complainant is required to produce a prima facie case in support of these allegations. Once Complainant has produced a prima facie case, the burden of proof shifts to Respondent to display that it does possess rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. See AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (finding that if the complainant satisfies its prima facie burden, “then the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names.”); see also Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name). The Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent has failed to respond to these proceedings, and, as such, the Panel finds that it may infer that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. See Am. Express Co. v. Fang Suhendro, FA 129120 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 30, 2002) (“[B]ased on Respondent's failure to respond, it is presumed that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“[Rule 14(b)] expressly provide[s] that the Panel ‘shall draw such inferences’ from the Respondent’s failure to comply with the rules ‘as it considers appropriate.”). However, the Panel will analyze the evidence on record to determine whether Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c).
Complainant further contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and that Complainant has not given Respondent permission to use Complainant’s mark. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain names identifies Respondent through several aliases, such as “Gerardo Gilbrano,” “Jean Marie Bergeron,” “Juan Martin Vega,” “Raul Gomez,” or “PrivacyProtect.org.” The Panel notes that none of these “registrants” appear to be commonly known by the disputed domain names. Therefore, the Panel finds that, without affirmative evidence of Respondent being commonly known by the disputed domain names, Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Eshback, FA 830934 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 7, 2006) (finding that the respondent failed to establish rights and legitimate interests in the <emitmortgage.com> domain name as the respondent was not authorized to register domain names featuring the complainant’s mark and failed to submit evidence of that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Complainant argues that all of the identified domain names redirect Internet users to <videorewardspace.com>, which features a logo similar to Complainant’s and offers “prizes” if a user completes a short survey and provides personal information. Complainant asserts that through this use Respondent’s website “is intended to copy the overall look and feel of the YOUTUBE website and logo and deceive users into mistakenly signing up for suspect text messaging plans or downloading adware toolbars.” Complainant argues that Respondent “likely derives substantial profits by redirecting users to the survey by signing users up for text messaging plans, contests, and other products and services.” Complainant goes on to allege that Respondent likely sells the contact information provided by Internet users for profit as well. The Panel finds that Respondent likely receives referral fees from the survey website for redirecting Internet users to this site. As previous panels have found that such use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), this Panel also finds the same in the instant proceeding. See Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Mgmt., Inc. v. egyGossip.com, FA 1288062 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 20, 2009) (holding that the use of a confusingly similar disputed domain name to offer a complainant’s gift cards in exchange for Internet users completing surveys is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use); see also Homer TLC, Inc. v. Wang, FA 1336037 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 23, 2010) (finding that the “[r]espondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with 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)” when the disputed domain name resolved to a survey website that purported to offer Internet users a gift card to the complainant’s stores).
Further, Complainant contends that Respondent is using the domain names to “mimic Complainant’s website in order to obtain personal information constitutes ‘phishing.’” The Panel tends to agree with Complainant and therefore finds that Respondent is using the disputed domain names in a phishing scheme. Such a scheme has been deemed by prior panels to be evidence that a respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. See Victoria's Secret Stores Brand Mgmt., Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1410009 (finding that the use of a domain name to offer a gift card in exchange for personal information is an “illicit ‘phishing’ scheme,” and that a respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in a domain name where it is using it for such a use); see also See Juno Online Servs., Inc. v. Nelson, FA 241972 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 29, 2004) (finding that using a domain name in a fraudulent scheme to deceive Internet users into providing their credit card and personal information is not a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use). The Panel finds accordingly.
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
The Panel first wishes to discuss Respondent’s registration of the following domain names:
1. <youtubr.com>, registered on November 3, 2005;
2. <youyube.com>, registered November 3, 2005;
3. <youtune.com>, registered November 19, 2005;
4. <tyoutube.com>, registered November 28, 2005;
5. <youtbue.com>, registered November 28, 2005;
6. <youttube.com>, registered November 29, 2005;
7. <yoututbe.com>, registered November 30, 2005;
8. <youtuube.com>, registered December 8, 2005;
9. <youtubve.com>, registered January 3, 2006;
10. <yutub.com>, registered January 16, 2006;
11. <youtubenaruto.com>, registered January 22, 2006;
12. <youtubube.com>, registered January 23, 2006; and
13. <youstube.com>, registered January 27, 2006.
All of these domain names have one thing in common: they were registered prior to Complainant’s trademark filings with the USPTO of January 30, 2006. The Panel finds that Complainant has not provided it with sufficient evidence of common law rights predating Respondent’s domain name registrations. Therefore, the Panel finds that it would be impossible for Respondent to have registered the above domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), where its domain name registrations predate Complainant’s rights in the mark. See Interep Nat'l Radio Sales, Inc. v. Internet Domain Names, Inc., D2000-0174 (WIPO May 26, 2000) (finding no bad faith where the respondent registered the domain prior to the complainant’s use of the mark); see also Telecom Italia S.p.A. v. NetGears LLC, FA 944807 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2007) (finding the respondent could not have registered or used the disputed domain name in bad faith where the respondent registered the disputed domain name before the complainant began using the mark). The rest of the Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) will only be applicable to the <dowloadyoutubevideos.com>, <jyoutube.com>, <khmeryoutube.com>, <lisenttoyoutube.com>, <listentiyoutube.com>, <listentotyoutube.com>, <listentoyourtube.com>, <pinoyoutube.com>, <www0youtube.com>, <www3youtube.com>, <wwwiyoutube.com>, <wwwyoutuble.com>, <yooutube.com>, <you7tube.com>, <youbtube.com>, <youhtube.com>, <youitube.com>, <youtne.com>, <youtoube.com>, <youtub3.com>, <youtubae.com>, <youtubbe.com>, <youtubec.com>, <youtubefreemovies.com>, <youtubeg.com>, <youtubemusicvideo.com>, <youtubemusique.com>, <youtubemyspace.com>, <youtubeporns.com>, <youtubeproxy.net>, <youtubev.com>, <youtubge.com>, <youtubhe.com>, <youtubue.com>, <youtuby.com>, <youtuyoutube.com>, and <youxtube.com> domain names.
Complainant alleges that Respondent’s registration of “more than fifty domain names” is evidence of bad faith registration and use in and of itself. Several previous panels have found that, where a respondent registers several domain names, such registrations are indicative of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Harcourt, Inc. v. Fadness, FA 95247 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that one instance of registration of several infringing domain names satisfies the burden imposed by the Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)); see also EPA European Pressphoto Agency B.V. v. Wilson, D2004-1012 (WIPO Feb. 9, 2005) (finding that the respondent’s registration of the <epa-photo.com>, <epaphoto.com> and <epaphotos.com> domain names was sufficient to constitute a pattern pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)). The Panel here finds that Respondent has registered the <dowloadyoutubevideos.com>, <jyoutube.com>, <khmeryoutube.com>, <lisenttoyoutube.com>, <listentiyoutube.com>, <listentotyoutube.com>, <listentoyourtube.com>, <pinoyoutube.com>, <www0youtube.com>, <www3youtube.com>, <wwwiyoutube.com>, <wwwyoutuble.com>, <yooutube.com>, <you7tube.com>, <youbtube.com>, <youhtube.com>, <youitube.com>, <youtne.com>, <youtoube.com>, <youtub3.com>, <youtubae.com>, <youtubbe.com>, <youtubec.com>, <youtubefreemovies.com>, <youtubeg.com>, <youtubemusicvideo.com>, <youtubemusique.com>, <youtubemyspace.com>, <youtubeporns.com>, <youtubeproxy.net>, <youtubev.com>, <youtubge.com>, <youtubhe.com>, <youtubue.com>, <youtuby.com>, <youtuyoutube.com>, and <youxtube.com> domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent is using variations of its YOUTUBE mark in the <dowloadyoutubevideos.com>, <jyoutube.com>, <khmeryoutube.com>, <lisenttoyoutube.com>, <listentiyoutube.com>, <listentotyoutube.com>, <listentoyourtube.com>, <pinoyoutube.com>, <www0youtube.com>, <www3youtube.com>, <wwwiyoutube.com>, <wwwyoutuble.com>, <yooutube.com>, <you7tube.com>, <youbtube.com>, <youhtube.com>, <youitube.com>, <youtne.com>, <youtoube.com>, <youtub3.com>, <youtubae.com>, <youtubbe.com>, <youtubec.com>, <youtubefreemovies.com>, <youtubeg.com>, <youtubemusicvideo.com>, <youtubemusique.com>, <youtubemyspace.com>, <youtubeporns.com>, <youtubeproxy.net>, <youtubev.com>, <youtubge.com>, <youtubhe.com>, <youtubue.com>, <youtuby.com>, <youtuyoutube.com>, and <youxtube.com> domain names in order to send Internet users to the <videorewardspace.com> website. This website offers Internet users certain “prizes” in exchange for providing personal information and making certain purchases, such as signing up for a text messaging plan. Complainant contends that Respondent receives substantial commercial benefit for its part in this scheme. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent registered, and is using, the domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Anne of Green Gable Licensing Auth., Inc. v. Internetworks, AF-0109 (eResolution June 12, 2000) (finding that the respondent violated Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the respondent admittedly used the complainant’s well-known mark to attract users to the respondent's website); see also 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).
Further, the Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the <dowloadyoutubevideos.com>, <jyoutube.com>, <khmeryoutube.com>, <lisenttoyoutube.com>, <listentiyoutube.com>, <listentotyoutube.com>, <listentoyourtube.com>, <pinoyoutube.com>, <www0youtube.com>, <www3youtube.com>, <wwwiyoutube.com>, <wwwyoutuble.com>, <yooutube.com>, <you7tube.com>, <youbtube.com>, <youhtube.com>, <youitube.com>, <youtne.com>, <youtoube.com>, <youtub3.com>, <youtubae.com>, <youtubbe.com>, <youtubec.com>, <youtubefreemovies.com>, <youtubeg.com>, <youtubemusicvideo.com>, <youtubemusique.com>, <youtubemyspace.com>, <youtubeporns.com>, <youtubeproxy.net>, <youtubev.com>, <youtubge.com>, <youtubhe.com>, <youtubue.com>, <youtuby.com>, <youtuyoutube.com>, and <youxtube.com> domain names also constitutes phishing, which this Panel finds to be bad faith registration and use of the domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Juno Online Servs., Inc. v. Nelson, FA 241972 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 29, 2004) (“The domain name <billing-juno.com> was registered and used in bad faith by using the name for fraudulent purposes.”); see also Hess Corp. v. GR, FA 770909 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 19, 2006) (finding that the respondent demonstrated bad faith registration and use because it was attempting to acquire the personal and financial information of Internet users through a confusingly similar domain name).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied as to the <dowloadyoutubevideos.com>, <jyoutube.com>, <khmeryoutube.com>, <lisenttoyoutube.com>, <listentiyoutube.com>, <listentotyoutube.com>, <listentoyourtube.com>, <pinoyoutube.com>, <www0youtube.com>, <www3youtube.com>, <wwwiyoutube.com>, <wwwyoutuble.com>, <yooutube.com>, <you7tube.com>, <youbtube.com>, <youhtube.com>, <youitube.com>, <youtne.com>, <youtoube.com>, <youtub3.com>, <youtubae.com>, <youtubbe.com>, <youtubec.com>, <youtubefreemovies.com>, <youtubeg.com>, <youtubemusicvideo.com>, <youtubemusique.com>, <youtubemyspace.com>, <youtubeporns.com>, <youtubeproxy.net>, <youtubev.com>, <youtubge.com>, <youtubhe.com>, <youtubue.com>, <youtuby.com>, <youtuyoutube.com>, and <youxtube.com> domain names. The Panel determines that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has not been satisfied as to the <youtubr.com>, <youyube.com>, <youtune.com>, <tyoutube.com>, <youtbue.com>, <youttube.com>, <yoututbe.com>, <youtuube.com>, <youtubve.com>, <yutub.com>, <youtubenaruto.com>, <youtubube.com>, and <youstube.com> domain names.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED as to the <dowloadyoutubevideos.com>, <jyoutube.com>, <khmeryoutube.com>, <lisenttoyoutube.com>, <listentiyoutube.com>, <listentotyoutube.com>, <listentoyourtube.com>, <pinoyoutube.com>, <www0youtube.com>, <www3youtube.com>, <wwwiyoutube.com>, <wwwyoutuble.com>, <yooutube.com>, <you7tube.com>, <youbtube.com>, <youhtube.com>, <youitube.com>, <youtne.com>, <youtoube.com>, <youtub3.com>, <youtubae.com>, <youtubbe.com>, <youtubec.com>, <youtubefreemovies.com>, <youtubeg.com>, <youtubemusicvideo.com>, <youtubemusique.com>, <youtubemyspace.com>, <youtubeporns.com>, <youtubeproxy.net>, <youtubev.com>, <youtubge.com>, <youtubhe.com>, <youtubue.com>, <youtuby.com>, <youtuyoutube.com>, and <youxtube.com> domain names.
Having failed to establish all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED as to the <youtubr.com>, <youyube.com>, <youtune.com>, <tyoutube.com>, <youtbue.com>, <youttube.com>, <yoututbe.com>, <youtuube.com>, <youtubve.com>, <yutub.com>, <youtubenaruto.com>, <youtubube.com>, and <youstube.com> domain names, with leave to re-file the Complaint in accordance with this decision.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <dowloadyoutubevideos.com>, <jyoutube.com>, <khmeryoutube.com>, <lisenttoyoutube.com>, <listentiyoutube.com>, <listentotyoutube.com>, <listentoyourtube.com>, <pinoyoutube.com>, <www0youtube.com>, <www3youtube.com>, <wwwiyoutube.com>, <wwwyoutuble.com>, <yooutube.com>, <you7tube.com>, <youbtube.com>, <youhtube.com>, <youitube.com>, <youtne.com>, <youtoube.com>, <youtub3.com>, <youtubae.com>, <youtubbe.com>, <youtubec.com>, <youtubefreemovies.com>, <youtubeg.com>, <youtubemusicvideo.com>, <youtubemusique.com>, <youtubemyspace.com>, <youtubeporns.com>, <youtubeproxy.net>, <youtubev.com>, <youtubge.com>, <youtubhe.com>, <youtubue.com>, <youtuby.com>, <youtuyoutube.com>, and <youxtube.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
It is further Ordered that the <youtubr.com>, <youyube.com>, <youtune.com>, <tyoutube.com>, <youtbue.com>, <youttube.com>, <yoututbe.com>, <youtuube.com>, <youtubve.com>, <yutub.com>, <youtubenaruto.com>, <youtubube.com>, and <youstube.com> domain names REMAIN WITH Respondent.
Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: December 28, 2011
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page