Google Inc. v. 1000.com / HyunGyu Lee
Claim Number: FA1302001483441
Complainant is Google Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Katie Krajeck of Cooley LLP, California, USA. Respondent is 1000.com / HyunGyu Lee (“Respondent”), South Korea.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <googelmap.com>, <googelmaps.com>, <google-map.com>, <google-maps.com>, <googlemaps.net>, <googlemapsl.com>, <googlemeps.com>, <goooglemaps.com>, <map-google.com>, <mapgoogel.com>, <mapgoole.com>, <maps-google.com>, <mapsgogle.com>, <mapsgoogel.com>, <mapsgoogle.net>, <mapsgooogle.com>, <mapslgoogle.com>, <wwwgooglemap.com>, <wwwgooglemaps.com>, <wwwmapgoogle.com>, and <wwwmapsgoogle.com>, registered with Inames Co., Ltd.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and that to the best of her knowledge, she has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically February 4, 2013; the National Arbitration Forum received payment February 5, 2013. The Complaint was submitted in both Korean and English.
On February 5, 2013, Inames Co., Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <googelmap.com>, <googelmaps.com>, <google-map.com>, <google-maps.com>, <googlemaps.net>, <googlemapsl.com>, <googlemeps.com>, <goooglemaps.com>, <map-google.com>, <mapgoogel.com>, <mapgoole.com>, <maps-google.com>, <mapsgogle.com>, <mapsgoogel.com>, <mapsgoogle.net>, <mapsgooogle.com>, <mapslgoogle.com>, <wwwgooglemap.com>, <wwwgooglemaps.com>, <wwwmapgoogle.com>, and <wwwmapsgoogle.com> domain names are registered with Inames Co., Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Inames Co., Ltd. verified that Respondent is bound by the Inames Co., Ltd. registration agreement and thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On February 13, 2013, the Forum served the Korean language Complaint and all Annexes, including a Korean language Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 5, 2013, 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@googelmap.com, postmaster@googelmaps.com, postmaster@google-map.com, postmaster@google-maps.com, postmaster@googlemaps.net, postmaster@googlemapsl.com, postmaster@googlemeps.com, postmaster@goooglemaps.com, postmaster@map-google.com, postmaster@mapgoogel.com, postmaster@mapgoole.com, postmaster@maps-google.com, postmaster@mapsgogle.com, postmaster@mapsgoogel.com, postmaster@mapsgoogle.net, postmaster@mapsgooogle.com, postmaster@mapslgoogle.com, postmaster@wwwgooglemap.com, postmaster@wwwgooglemaps.com, postmaster@wwwmapgoogle.com, and postmaster@wwwmapsgoogle.com. Also on February 13, 2013, the Korean language 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, March 20, 2013, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson to sit as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum 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.
i. Respondent registered the <google-maps.com>, <googlemaps.net>, <maps-google.com>, and <mapsgoogle.net> domain names February 8, 2005.
ii. Respondent registered the <googelmaps.com>, <google-map.com>, <googlemeps.com>, <goooglemaps.com>, <map-google.com>, <mapsgogle.com>, <mapsgoogel.com>, <mapsgooogle.com>, <wwwgooglemaps.com>, and <wwwmapsgoogle.com> domain names April 6, 2005.
iii. Respondent registered the <googelmap.com>, <mapgoogel.com>, <mapgoole.com>, <wwwgooglemap.com>, and <wwwmapgoogle.com> domain names April 14, 2005.
iv. Respondent registered the <googlemapsl.com> and <mapslgoogle.com> domain names August 29, 2005.
Respondent’s <google-map.com>, <google-maps.com>, <googlemaps.net>, <googlemapsl.com>, <googlemeps.com>, <map-google.com>, <maps-google.com>, <mapsgoogle.net>, <mapslgoogle.com>, <wwwgooglemap.com>, <wwwgooglemaps.com>,<wwwmapgoogle.com>, and <wwwmapsgoogle.com> domain names incorporate the famous GOOGLE mark in its entirety and are confusingly similar to the GOOGLE mark. Respondent’s <googelmap.com>, <googelmaps.com>, <goooglemaps.com>, <mapgoogel.com>, <mapgoole.com>, <mapsgogle.com>, <mapsgoogel.com>, and <mapsgooogle.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, because each domain name merely interchanges, deletes, or replaces letters in order to create confusion. In this instance, the domain names merely add the descriptive and non-distinctive terms “www,” “map,” “maps,” or the misspelled variant “meps” before and after the GOOGLE mark.
i. Respondent’s WHOIS information in connection with the domain names makes no mention of the domain names or the GOOGLE mark as Respondent’s name or nickname.
ii. Respondent is redirecting users who are seeking Complainant’s GOOGLE MAPS service to a website that falsely purports to offer free prizes, redirects to a site that requests users’ personal information and deceives users into believing the offers and requests for information are made by Complainant. Respondent presumably sells the personal information collected from Complainant’s misdirected users as part of a phishing scheme, thereby deriving substantial profits.
i. Respondent’s registered 21 domain names that are confusingly similar or identical to Complainant’s GOOGLE mark.
ii. The fame and unique qualities of the GOOGLE mark make it extremely unlikely that Respondent created the domain names independently.
iii. Respondent’s domain names appear to be part of a phishing scheme in which Respondent falsely offers to award users prizes such as an iPad or a gift card, but instead collects personal information from users seeking such prizes under the misimpression they are dealing with Complainant.
LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS:
The Panel notes that the Registration Agreement is written in Korean, thereby making the language of the proceedings Korean. After review of the applicable rules on language of the proceedings under the UDRP, the Panel finds, pursuant to Rule 11(a), that the language requirement has been satisfied through the Korean language Complaint and Commencement Notification, and, absent a Response, determines that the remainder of the proceedings may be conducted in English.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS
In the instant proceedings, Complainant 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.” Complainant contends that the registrant information provided in the WHOIS records for each of the domain names lists the same address, email address, and telephone number for all domain names. Complainant further contends that each of the disputed domain names is registered through the same registrar, Inames Co., Ltd., and that each domain resolves to the same content.
The Panel finds that Complainant presented sufficient evidence that the disputed domain names are controlled by the same entity and finds that it is appropriate to proceed with the instant proceedings as to the multiple domain names: <googelmap.com>, <googelmaps.com>, <google-map.com>, <google-maps.com>, <googlemaps.net>, <googlemapsl.com>, <googlemeps.com>, <goooglemaps.com>, <map-google.com>, <mapgoogel.com>, <mapgoole.com>, <maps-google.com>, <mapsgogle.com>, <mapsgoogel.com>, <mapsgoogle.net>, <mapsgooogle.com>, <mapslgoogle.com>, <wwwgooglemap.com>, <wwwgooglemaps.com>, <wwwmapgoogle.com>, and <wwwmapsgoogle.com>.
Complainant established that it has rights to and legitimate interests in the GOOGLE marks included in its entirety in the disputed domain names at issue.
All of the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s protected mark.
Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in any one of the multiple domain names that Respondent registered and included in its entirety Complainant’s protected mark.
Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith, including phishing endeavors.
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 Complainant to 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 to 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.
Given 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 will draw such inferences as the Panel 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.”).
Identical to or Confusingly Similar
Complainant, Google Inc., argues that it is one of the largest and most highly recognized and widely used Internet search services in the world. Complainant asserts that its primary website is located at <google.com>. Complainant contends that it owns and operates hundreds of additional GOOGLE-formative domain names, including nearly every top-level country code domain consisting solely of the GOOGLE mark. Complainant asserts that it is the owner of trademark registrations with the USPTO for the GOOGLE mark (e.g., Reg. No. 2,806,075, registered January 20, 2004). See Complainant’s Exhibit 8a. Complainant argues that it is also the owner of trademark registrations with various countries throughout the world, including with the KIPO for the GOOGLE mark (e.g., Reg. No. 45-1291, registered June 2, 2000). See Complainant’s Exhibit 8b. The Panel finds that Complainant’s registration of the GOOGLE mark with the KIPO and the USPTO sufficiently establishes its rights in the GOOGLE mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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).
Complainant asserts that Respondent’s <google-map.com>, <google-maps.com>, <googlemaps.net>, <googlemapsl.com>, <googlemeps.com>, <map-google.com>, <maps-google.com>, <mapsgoogle.net>, <mapslgoogle.com>, <wwwgooglemap.com>, <wwwgooglemaps.com>,<wwwmapgoogle.com>, and <wwwmapsgoogle.com> domain names incorporate the famous GOOGLE mark in its entirety and are confusingly similar to the GOOGLE mark. Complainant argues that the above-mentioned domain names include the GOOGLE mark and merely add the descriptive and non-distinctive terms “www,” “map,” “maps,” or the misspelled variant “meps” before and after the GOOGLE mark.
The Panel finds that the addition of a descriptive term or “www” does not distinguish Respondent’s domain names from Complainant’s mark. See Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Ling Shun Shing, FA 206399 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 15, 2003) (finding that the addition of the term “assurance,” to the complainant’s AIG mark failed to sufficiently differentiate the name from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because the appended term related directly to the complainant’s business); see 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”).
The Panel notes that Respondent adds a hyphen to some of the disputed domain names. The Panel finds that the addition of a hyphen does not negate confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Health Devices Corp. v. Aspen S T C, FA 158254 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 1, 2003) (“[T]he addition of punctuation marks such as hyphens is irrelevant in the determination of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). The Panel notes as well that Respondent adds the letter “l” to some of the disputed domain names. The Panel finds that the addition of a letter to the disputed domain names does not differentiate the disputed domain names from Complainant’s GOOGLE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Amazon.com, Inc. v. Ikhizamah, D2002-1168 (WIPO Mar. 17, 2003) (holding that the <zamazon.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s AMAZON.COM mark).
Complainant further contends that Respondent’s <googelmap.com>, <googelmaps.com>, <goooglemaps.com>, <mapgoogel.com>, <mapgoole.com>, <mapsgogle.com>, <mapsgoogel.com>, and <mapsgooogle.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, because these domain names merely interchange, delete, or replace letters in order to create confusion. The Panel finds that Respondent’s misspelling of Complainant’s GOOGLE mark in the disputed domain names is inconsequential under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Victoria’s Secret v. Zuccarini, FA 95762 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (finding that, by misspelling words and adding letters to words, a respondent does not create a distinct mark but nevertheless renders the domain name confusingly similar to the complainant’s marks). The Panel notes that the above-mentioned domain names include the GOOGLE mark and merely add the descriptive and non-distinctive terms “map,” or “maps,” before or after the GOOGLE mark. The Panel finds that the addition of a descriptive term does not sufficiently distinguish Respondent’s domain names from Complainant’s mark. See Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Ling Shun Shing, FA 206399 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 15, 2003) (finding that the addition of the term “assurance,” to the complainant’s AIG mark failed to sufficiently differentiate the name from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because the appended term related directly to the complainant’s business). The Panel notes that Respondent adds the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” or “.net” to the disputed domain names. The Panel finds that the addition of a gTLD is inconsequential under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <googelmap.com>, <googelmaps.com>, <google-map.com>, <google-maps.com>, <googlemaps.net>, <googlemapsl.com>, <googlemeps.com>, <goooglemaps.com>, <map-google.com>, <mapgoogel.com>, <mapgoole.com>, <maps-google.com>, <mapsgogle.com>, <mapsgoogel.com>, <mapsgoogle.net>, <mapsgooogle.com>, <mapslgoogle.com>, <wwwgooglemap.com>, <wwwgooglemaps.com>, <wwwmapgoogle.com>, and <wwwmapsgoogle.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s GOOGLE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent makes no contentions relative to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s protected mark; Complainant satisfied the elements as to each of ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Rights to and Legitimate Interests
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden of proof shifts to Respondent to show it does have such rights or legitimate interests. See 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 UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s WHOIS information in connection with the domain names makes no mention of the domain names or the GOOGLE mark as Respondent’s name or nickname. The Panel notes that the WHOIS information for the disputed domain names lists “1000.com / HyunGyu Lee” as the registrant. See Complainant’s Exhibit 4. Complainant contends that it has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use any of its trademarks in any way. The Panel finds that Respondent did not produce any information that it is commonly known by the disputed domain names, in the WHOIS information or in any other evidence, and the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Complainant asserts that Respondent is redirecting users who are seeking Complainant’s GOOGLE MAPS service to a website that falsely purports to offer free prizes, redirects to a site that requests users’ personal information and deceives users into believing the offers and requests for information are made by Complainant. Complainant claims the domain names resolve to websites featuring messages saying that the Internet user will “have the opportunity to get a $1000 Walmart Gift Card, a $1,000 Visa Gift Card, or a iPad 3.” Complainant contends that users who click the “Start Now” link that appears beneath the messages are redirected to a series of websites that seek personal information, including the user’s gender, the location from which the user is viewing the website, and the number of hours spent online daily. Complainant argues that users who answer each of these questions are then instructed to “Select a product below for a chance to win.” Complainant claims that once a user clicks on his purported prize, he is instructed to enter his email address, and is then redirected to <mybigbrandrewards.com/address/index.php>, a website identified by anti-virus software as a “phishing URL.” Complainant asserts that Respondent presumably sells the personal information collected from Complainant’s misdirected users as part of a phishing scheme, thereby deriving substantial profits. The Panel finds that Respondent is attempting to “phish” personal information from users, and therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not using the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or 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).”)
Respondent makes no contentions relative to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in any one of the disputed domain names; Complainant satisfied the elements of ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Complainant claims that Respondent registered 21 domain names that are similar or identical to Complainant’s GOOGLE mark. The Panel notes that Respondent registered the following domain names: <googelmap.com>, <googelmaps.com>, <google-map.com>, <google-maps.com>, <googlemaps.net>, <googlemapsl.com>, <googlemeps.com>, <goooglemaps.com>, <map-google.com>, <mapgoogel.com>, <mapgoole.com>, <maps-google.com>, <mapsgogle.com>, <mapsgoogel.com>, <mapsgoogle.net>, <mapsgooogle.com>, <mapslgoogle.com>, <wwwgooglemap.com>, <wwwgooglemaps.com>, <wwwmapgoogle.com>, and <wwwmapsgoogle.com>. The Panel finds that Respondent’s registration of multiple domains in the present case evidences bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Yahoo! Inc. v. Deiana, FA 339579 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 22, 2004) (“It is found and determined that Respondent is in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) because Respondent registered the disputed domain names to prevent Complainant from reflecting its YAHOO! mark in the corresponding domain names. The registration of the [<ayhooo.com>, <ayhooo.net >, <ayhooo.org>, <ayhoooindia.com>, <ayhoookids.com>, <ayhooorealty.com>, <ayhooorealty.net>, <ayhoooshopping.com>, <ayhooo-uk.com>, and <searchayhooo.com>] domain names herein constitutes a pattern of registering trademark-related domain names in bad faith.”).
Complainant asserts that the fame and unique qualities of the GOOGLE mark make it extremely unlikely that Respondent created the domain names independently. Complainant claims that in this case, Respondent registered domain names consisting almost entirely of Complainant’s famous GOOGLE marks. The Panel finds that, due to the fame of Complainant’s GOOGLE mark and Respondent’s registration of domain names, which fully incorporate the GOOGLE mark, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark and rights and therefore finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Nat'l Patent Servs. Inc. v. Bean, FA 1071869 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 1, 2007) ("[C]onstructive notice does not support a finding of bad faith registration."); see also 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 "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name").
Complainant contends that Respondent’s domain names appear to be part of a phishing scheme in which Respondent falsely offers to award users prizes such as an iPad or a gift card, but instead collects personal information from users seeking such prizes under the misimpression they are dealing with Complainant. See Complainant’s Exhibit 9. In Wells Fargo & Co. v. Maniac State, FA 608239 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 19, 2006), the panel found bad faith registration and use where the respondent was using the domain name in order to fraudulently acquire the personal and financial information of the complainant’s customers. The Panel finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain names to phish for Internet users personal information, and the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Respondent makes no contentions relative to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith; Complainant satisfied the elements of ICANN 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 <googelmap.com>, <googelmaps.com>, <google-map.com>, <google-maps.com>, <googlemaps.net>, <googlemapsl.com>, <googlemeps.com>, <goooglemaps.com>, <map-google.com>, <mapgoogel.com>, <mapgoole.com>, <maps-google.com>, <mapsgogle.com>, <mapsgoogel.com>, <mapsgoogle.net>, <mapsgooogle.com>, <mapslgoogle.com>, <wwwgooglemap.com>, <wwwgooglemaps.com>, <wwwmapgoogle.com>, and <wwwmapsgoogle.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist
Dated: April 2, 2013.
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page