Google LLC v. Haim cohen, haimcohen
Claim Number: FA2202001985436
Complainant is Google LLC (“Complainant”), represented by James R. Davis, II of Perkins Coie LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Haim cohen, haimcohen (“Respondent”), Israel.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <xn--yutube-pl8b.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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on February 22, 2022; the Forum received payment on February 22, 2022.
On February 23, 2022, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <xn--yutube-pl8b.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 February 24, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 16, 2022 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@xn--yutube-pl8b.com. Also on February 24, 2022, 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 March 18, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill 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.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name in dispute, <xn--yutube-pl8b.com>, is an internationalized domain name (“IDN”) with the PUNYCODE translation, containing one non-ASCII character, of [<yọutube.com>]. An IDN is a domain name that contains non-traditional characters, such as letters with diacritics or other non-ASCII characters. In order to display characters or symbols in a domain name, the terms of the domain name are encoded with PUNYCODE.
In the past, panels have found IDNs and their PUNYCODE translations to be equivalent. See Damien Persohn v. Lim, FA 874447 (Forum Feb. 19, 2007) (finding an internationalized domain name, <têtu.com>, and its PUNYCODE translation, <xn--ttu-fma.com>, to be one and the same under the Policy); see also Württembergische Versicherung AG v. Emir Ulu, D2006-0278 (WIPO May 4, 2006) (finding that the <xn--wrttembergische-versicherung-16c.com> should be considered as equivalent to the <württembergische-versicherung.com> domain name, based on previous panel decisions recognizing the relevance of I-nav software for translating German letters such as “ä” or “ü” into codes such as <xn--[name]-16c> and similar); see also Fujitsu Ltd. v. tete and Lianqiu Li, D2006-0885 (WIPO Oct. 12, 2006) (finding the <xn--zqsv0e014e.com> domain name to be an exact reproduction of the complainant’s Chinese trademark in a domain name). Thus the Panel finds that the <xn--yutube-pl8b.com> domain name is the same as its PUNYCODE translation, [<yọutube.com >], for purposes of this proceeding.
A. Complainant
Complainant states that the YOUTUBE mark is a coined term that was created by its then-owner YouTube, Inc. in February 2005 for use as the brand of a video sharing service. Its website was launched on April 24, 2005, and the YOUTUBE mark and related logos have been prominently featured since then at on the YouTube website and otherwise in marketing for the service. The popularity of the website grew quickly. In July 2006, Nielsen Netratings named it the fastest growing website between January and June 2006. The website ended that period with a monthly unique audience of 19.6 million, and with 724 million web page views. In August 2006, the Wall Street Journal reported that the website hosted approximately 6.1 million videos and had about 500,000 user accounts. Time magazine hailed YouTube as the best invention of the year in its 2006 edition. In November 2006, Complainant acquired YouTube, Inc., and in 2007 was assigned the YOUTUBE mark and YouTube, Inc.’s other marks and their associated goodwill. In February 2007, Brandchannel announced that the YOUTUBE brand ranked third in its 2006 Reader’s Choice Awards, behind only GOOGLE and APPLE. By November of that year, comScore reported that YouTube users watched 2.9 billion videos and Nielsen Netratings reported that the service had 67.5 million unique users. Since then, YouTube rapidly became the leading online video sharing site that it is today. For 2013, Nielsen Netratings rated YOUTUBE as the fifth “Top U.S. Web Brand” and the number one “U.S. Online Video Brand” with more than 128 million unique viewers. Interbrand recently ranked YOUTUBE as the #30 best global brand. According to Alexa, YouTube is currently the second most viewed website in the world and it ranks in the top ten in numerous countries. Today, YouTube has more than 2 billion monthly logged-in users, and more than 500 hours of content are uploaded to YouTube every minute. There are localized versions of YouTube in more than 100 countries around the world and across 80 languages, making YouTube accessible to more than 95% of the world’s Internet users. Each day, people watch more than a billion hours of video on YouTube and generate billions of views. Complainant’s YouTube service reaches more 18-34 and 18-49 year olds in the U.S. than any television network (broadcast or cable) – and it does that on the YouTube mobile platform alone. Complainant has rights in the YOUTUBE mark through its registration in the United States in 2008. The mark is registered elsewhere around the world and it is famous.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its YOUTUBE mark in that the Punycode conversion of the domain name includes one non-ASCII character, displaying as <yọutube.com>.
According to Complainant, Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s YOUTUBE mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Additionally, Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the resolving website displays parked pay-per-click advertisements for products and services not related to Complainant.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. The resolving website displays parked pay-per-click advertisements for products and services not related to Complainant. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the YOUTUBE mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns the mark YOUTUBE, with rights dating back to at least 2008 and uses it to provide video streaming services. The mark is famous.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2021.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The disputed domain name resolves to a web site that displays pay-per-click advertising links for products and services that are not related to Complainant.
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 disputed domain name is the Punycode conversion of the string, which contains one non-ASCII character, “yọutube”, with the mere addition of the “.com” gTLD. Previous panels have found similar situations to constitute confusing similarity according to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corp. v. Harrington, FA1305319 (Forum Mar. 16, 2010) (finding <bıng.com> [xn--bng-jua.com] confusingly similar to BING and noting, “The Panel finds that exchanging one letter for another in the disputed domain name fails to prevent confusing similarity according to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), especially when the disputed domain name remains visually similar to Complainant’s mark”); see also NIKE, Inc. and Nike Innovate, C.V. v. michal restl c/o Dynadot, FA1703001723952 (Forum May 11, 2017) (finding <nıke.com> [xn--nke-jua.com] confusingly similar to NIKE and noting, “Panels have determined that exchanging a letter in a mark for a Unicode character fails to distinguish a domain name for the purposes of a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis of confusing similarity”). Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use Complainant’s YOUTUBE mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: where a response is lacking, WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Haim cohen, haimcohen”. Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The resolving website displays parked pay-per-click advertising links to products and services not related to Complainant. This is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Summit Group, LLC v. LSO, Ltd., FA 758981 (Forum Sept. 14, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of the complainant’s LIFESTYLE LOUNGE mark to redirect Internet users to respondent’s own website for commercial gain does not constitute either 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)); see also Vance Int’l, Inc. v. Abend, FA 970871 (Forum June 8, 2007) (concluding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, regardless of whether or not the links resolve to competing or unrelated websites or if the respondent is itself commercially profiting from the click-through fees). Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make 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). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
Indeed, as already noted, the resolving website promotes products and services unrelated to Complainant’s business. Such use of a domain name can demonstrate a respondent’s bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (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); see also Fossil, Inc. v. wwwfossil-watch.org c/o Hostmaster, Case No. FA 335513 (Forum Nov. 9, 2004) (finding bad faith where respondent attempted to profit from the fame of complainant’s trademark by attracting internet traffic to his website); see also Tumblr, Inc. v. Ailing Liu, FA1402001543807 (Forum Mar. 24, 2014) (“Bad faith use and registration exists under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where a respondent uses a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a website featuring links and advertisements unrelated to complainant’s business and respondent is likely collecting fees.”). The Panel therefore finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 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 <xn--yutube-pl8b.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: March 18, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page