Google Inc. v. Rajneesh kumar
Claim Number: FA1606001679877
Complainant is Google Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Morgan A. Champion of Cooley LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Rajneesh Kumar (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <googlechromecastsetup.com> and <chromecastcomsetup.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Darryl C. Wilson, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 16, 2016; the Forum received payment on June 20, 2016.
On June 17, 2016, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <googlechromecastsetup.com> and <chromecastcomsetup.com> domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On June 20, 2016, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 11, 2016 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@googlechromecastsetup.com, and postmaster@chromecastcomsetup.com. Also on June 20, 2016, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On July 20, 2016, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Darryl C. Wilson, 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant, Google Inc., uses the GOOGLE and CHROMECAST marks in connection with its business as a leading provider of Internet-related products and services. Complainant owns the GOOGLE mark as demonstrated by registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g., Registration No. 2,806,075, registered Jan. 20, 2004) and the CHROMECAST mark with the Benelux trademark authority (Reg. No. 952,181, registered Feb. 25, 2014) collectively the “GOOGLE marks.” The <googlechromecastsetup.com> and <chromecastcomsetup.com>
domain names are confusingly similar to the GOOGLE marks as the domain names combine the marks with the words “setup” and “com,” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. There is no evidence, including the WHOIS information, to suggest that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names or any name containing the GOOGLE mark. Complainant has not authorized Respondent to register or use the disputed domain names, nor is Respondent affiliated with, associated with or otherwise endorsed by Complainant. Respondent uses the disputed domain names to purportedly offer technical support for Complainant’s products, which demonstrates that Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Further, Respondent is using the disputed domain names to pass itself off as Complainant online for Respondent’s commercial gain.
Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use of the <googlechromecastsetup.com> and <chromecastcomsetup.com> domain names. Respondent intentionally attracts, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark. Further, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark and registered the disputed domain names in bad faith. Additionally, Respondent attempts to pass itself off as Complainant, which is additional evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant is Google Inc. of Mountain View, CA, USA. Complainant was established in 1997 and since that time has continuously offered a broad array of internet related technological products and services under its GOOGLE mark. Google is the owner of numerous domestic and international registrations for its GOOGLE mark and variations thereon constituting the family of GOOGLE marks. Google also is the owner of the marks CHROMECAST and GOOGLE CHROMECAST domestically and globally.
Respondent is Rajneesh Kumar, of Chandigarh, India. Respondent’s registrar’s address is listed as Scottsdale, AZ, USA. The Panel notes that the <googlechromecastsetup.com> was registered on or about January 21, 2015 and the <chromecastcomsetup.com> domain name was registered on or about August 19, 2015.
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 names registered by Respondent are 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 names; and
(3) the domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations 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 (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.”).
Preliminary Issue – Consent to Transfer
The Forum was copied on documentation submitted from Respondent to Complainant, which is identified in this proceeding as “Correspondence—Respondent.” In that document, Respondent purports to consent to the transfer of the <googlechromecastsetup.com> and <chromecastcomsetup.com> domain names stating, amongst other indications of relinquishment, “we are willing to give away the domains to google inc.” The Panel notes that it is under no obligation to acknowledge any such documents.
Respondent consents to transfer the <googlechromecastsetup.com> and <chromecastcomsetup.com> domain names to Complainant. However, after the initiation of this proceeding, GoDaddy.com LLC placed a hold on Respondent’s account and therefore Respondent cannot transfer the disputed domain names while this proceeding is still pending. The Panel finds that in these types of circumstances, where Respondent has not contested the transfer of the disputed domain names, but instead agrees to transfer the domain names in question to Complainant, the traditional UDRP analysis is unnecessary and an order of immediate transfer of the <googlechromecastsetup.com> and <chromecastcomsetup.com> domain names from Respondent to Complainant is warranted. See Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Forum Jan. 13, 2004) (“In this case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant . . . Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.”); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Forum June 24, 2005) (“[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.”).
Respondent consents to transfer.
Respondent consents to transfer.
Respondent consents to transfer.
As the Respondent has consented to the transfer it is Ordered that Complainant’s requested relief be immediately GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <googlechromecastsetup.com> and <chromecastcomsetup.com> domain names be immediately TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Darryl C. Wilson, Panelist
Dated: August 3, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page