Google LLC v. GNP Magazine / abs global technologies
Claim Number: FA2108001959867
Complainant is Google LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Vicki Nee of Perkins Coie LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is GNP Magazine / abs global technologies (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <googlenewspost.com>, (‘the Domain Name’) registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 17, 2021; the Forum received payment on August 17, 2021.
On August 17, 2021, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <googlenewspost.com> Domain Name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On August 18, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 7, 2021 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@googlenewspost.com. Also on August 18, 2021, 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 September 10, 2021 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows:
The Complainant owns the well-known trade mark GOOGLE registered, inter alia in the USA for Internet related services with first use recorded as 1997. It owns <google.com>.
Google News is a news aggregator service that provides links to articles organized from publishers and magazines. Google offers Google News as a mobile app and as a website. The Google News website was launched in 2002 and the Google News app was launched in 2006. Google also operates a Twitter account for Google News (@GoogleNews).
The Domain Name was registered in 2020 and has been used for competing Internet news services.
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s GOOGLE trade mark incorporating it in its entirety and adding only the generic term ‘news post’ and the gTLD “.com” which do not distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s mark.
The Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and has not been authorized by the Complainant to use the Complainant’s mark. The Respondent is using the Domain Name for a competing Internet news service which is not a bona fide offering of services or a noncommercial fair use. The Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name.
Respondent is using the Domain Name to confuse Internet users for commercial gain by offering competing Internet news services. The Domain Name has been registered and used in opportunistic bad faith for commercial gain. The Respondent has used a privacy service.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Complainant owns the well-known trade mark GOOGLE registered, inter alia in the USA for Internet related services with first use recorded as 1997. It owns <google.com>.
Google News is a news aggregator service that provides links to articles organized from publishers and magazines. Google offers Google News as a mobile app and as a website. The Google News website was launched in 2002 and the Google News app was launched in 2006. Google also operates a Twitter account for Google News (@GoogleNews).
The Domain Name was registered in 2020 and has been used for a competing Internet news service.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
The Domain Name consists of the Complainant’s well known GOOGLE mark (which is registered in USA for Internet related services with first use recorded as 1997), the generic term ‘news post’ and the gTLD “.com”.
Previous panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds a generic term to the Complainant's mark. See PG&E Corp. v. Anderson, D2000-1264 (WIPO Nov. 22, 2000) (finding that respondent does not by adding common descriptive or generic terms create new or different marks). The Panel holds that adding the generic term ‘news post’ does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s mark.
The gTLD “.com” does not serve to distinguish a Domain Name from a Complainant’s mark. See Red Hat Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s GOOGLE registered mark.
As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has not authorized the use of its mark. The Respondent has not answered this Complaint but according to the WhoIS data is known as GNP Magazine / abs global technologies and so does not appear to be commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark).
The web site attached to the Domain Name is an Internet news services site competing with that of the Complainant. It does not make it clear that there is no commercial connection with the Complainant. The Panel finds this use is confusing. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services. See Am. Intl Group Inc. v. Benjamin, FA 944242 (Forum May 11, 2007) (finding that the Respondent's use of a confusingly similar domain name to advertise services which competed with the Complainant's business did not constitute a bona fide use of goods and services).
As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The Respondent has not submitted a Response or explained why it should be allowed to use the Complainant’s famous mark for competing Internet news services.
In the opinion of the panelist the use made of the Domain Name in relation to the Respondent’s site is confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably believe it is connected to or approved by the Complainant as it offers competing Internet news services via the Domain Name which contains the Complainant’s famous mark. The Panel also notes that on its Twitter feed the Respondent uses a G in rainbow colours which is highly suggestive of the multi coloured logo used by the Complainant which also indicates the Respondent is aware of the Complainant and its rights and services.
The Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of that web site and services offered on it likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. See Asbury Auto Group Inc. v. Tex. Int'l Prop Assocs, FA 958542 (Forum May 29, 2007) (finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to advertise car dealerships that competed with the complainant's business would likely lead to confusion amongst Internet users as to the sponsorship or affiliation of those competing dealerships and was therefore evidence of bad faith and use).
As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <googlenewspost.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Dated: September 10, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page