Google LLC v. Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD
Claim Number: FA2206002001291
Complainant is Google LLC (“Complainant”), represented by James R. Davis, II of Perkins Coie LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD (“Respondent”), Panama.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <40googlemail.com>, <doctorgoogle.com>, <earthgoogal.com>, <getgoogal.com>, <ggoogel.com>, <ggoogl.com>, <gogooel.com>, <gogool.com>, <goo9gle.com>, <gooelc.com>, <gooelg.com>, <goofge.com>, <goofke.com>, <goofleearth.com>, <gooflemail.com>, <gooflgle.com>, <googae.com>, <googchrome.com>, <googeldocs.com>, <googelearth.com>, <googglle.com>, <googgmail.com>, <googhle.com>, <googkel.com>, <googkemail.com>, <googl3e.com>, <googl4e.com>, <google-redirect.com>, <googleaerth.com>, <googleapisd.com>, <googlediscoveryeducation.com>, <googleeaeth.com>, <googleearath.com>, <googleearh.com>, <googleearht.com>, <googleeart.com>, <googleeartch.com>, <googleeath.com>, <googleeatrh.com>, <googleeearth.com>, <googleerath.com>, <googleerth.com>, <googlefights.com>, <googlefree.com>, <googlemaaps.com>, <googlemapsle.com>, <googlemapx.com>, <googlemyactivity.com>, <googlenet.com>, <googlenewsonline.com>, <googleo.com>, <googleom.com>, <googlepagerankchecker.com>, <googlepasswords.com>, <googlepmaps.com>, <googlerarth.com>, <googleschlor.com>, <googleschollar.com>, <googlesearchengine.com>, <googlesholar.com>, <googlespis.com>, <googletransalate.com>, <googletranslte.com>, <googlevoive.com>, <googlo.com>, <googlogo.com>, <googlrchrome.com>, <googlrdocs.com>, <googlrmeet.com>, <googls.com>, <goognle.com>, <googsle.com>, <goojle.com>, <goolde.com>, <gooleapis.com>, <goolecrom.com>, <gooledocs.com>, <gooleeart.com>, <gooleearth.com>, <gooles.com>, <goolgeearth.com>, <goolgele.com>, <goolgelmap.com>, <goolgemap.com>, <gooodle.com>, <gooogleearth.com>, <gooogogle.com>, <goooogle.com>, <gooooole.com>, <goooooooooogle.com>, <gooooooooooooooooooooooooogle.com>, <goopgle.com>, <goosle.com>, <gootleearth.com>, <gooyougle.com>, <httpgoogle.com>, <lh3googleusercontent.com>, <mygoogleactivity.com>, <ogoogle.com>, <orggoogle.com>, <sgoogle.com>, <usgoogle.com>, <waltoncommunitygooglemail.com>, <whatisgoole.com>, <withgoodle.com>, <www-googlemail.com>, <wwwgooge.com>, <wwwgoogleearth.com>, <wwwgooglre.com>, <g0oogle.com>, <ggoggle.com>, <ggogledrive.com>, <gogaleearth.com>, <goggel.com>, <gogggleearth.com>, <goggleclass.com>, <gogglee.com>, <gogglegmail.com>, <gogleearth.com>, <gogleeearth.com>, <imagesgogle.com>, <myaccountgogle.com>, <giigle.com>, <hooglemaps.com>, <goggleearthmap.com>, <gogglescholar.com>, <gogglesmap.com>, and <goggleworks.com>, registered with Media Elite Holdings Limited.
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 June 22, 2022; the Forum received payment on June 22, 2022.
On June 30, 2022, and July 07, 2022, Media Elite Holdings Limited confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <40googlemail.com>, <doctorgoogle.com>, <earthgoogal.com>, <getgoogal.com>, <ggoogel.com>, <ggoogl.com>, <gogooel.com>, <gogool.com>, <goo9gle.com>, <gooelc.com>, <gooelg.com>, <goofge.com>, <goofke.com>, <goofleearth.com>, <gooflemail.com>, <gooflgle.com>, <googae.com>, <googchrome.com>, <googeldocs.com>, <googelearth.com>, <googglle.com>, <googgmail.com>, <googhle.com>, <googkel.com>, <googkemail.com>, <googl3e.com>, <googl4e.com>, <google-redirect.com>, <googleaerth.com>, <googleapisd.com>, <googlediscoveryeducation.com>, <googleeaeth.com>, <googleearath.com>, <googleearh.com>, <googleearht.com>, <googleeart.com>, <googleeartch.com>, <googleeath.com>, <googleeatrh.com>, <googleeearth.com>, <googleerath.com>, <googleerth.com>, <googlefights.com>, <googlefree.com>, <googlemaaps.com>, <googlemapsle.com>, <googlemapx.com>, <googlemyactivity.com>, <googlenet.com>, <googlenewsonline.com>, <googleo.com>, <googleom.com>, <googlepagerankchecker.com>, <googlepasswords.com>, <googlepmaps.com>, <googlerarth.com>, <googleschlor.com>, <googleschollar.com>, <googlesearchengine.com>, <googlesholar.com>, <googlespis.com>, <googletransalate.com>, <googletranslte.com>, <googlevoive.com>, <googlo.com>, <googlogo.com>, <googlrchrome.com>, <googlrdocs.com>, <googlrmeet.com>, <googls.com>, <goognle.com>, <googsle.com>, <goojle.com>, <goolde.com>, <gooleapis.com>, <goolecrom.com>, <gooledocs.com>, <gooleeart.com>, <gooleearth.com>, <gooles.com>, <goolgeearth.com>, <goolgele.com>, <goolgelmap.com>, <goolgemap.com>, <gooodle.com>, <gooogleearth.com>, <gooogogle.com>, <goooogle.com>, <gooooole.com>, <goooooooooogle.com>, <gooooooooooooooooooooooooogle.com>, <goopgle.com>, <goosle.com>, <gootleearth.com>, <gooyougle.com>, <httpgoogle.com>, <lh3googleusercontent.com>, <mygoogleactivity.com>, <ogoogle.com>, <orggoogle.com>, <sgoogle.com>, <usgoogle.com>, <waltoncommunitygooglemail.com>, <whatisgoole.com>, <withgoodle.com>, <www-googlemail.com>, <wwwgooge.com>, <wwwgoogleearth.com>, <wwwgooglre.com>, <g0oogle.com>, <ggoggle.com>, <ggogledrive.com>, <gogaleearth.com>, <goggel.com>, <gogggleearth.com>, <goggleclass.com>, <gogglee.com>, <gogglegmail.com>, <gogleearth.com>, <gogleeearth.com>, <imagesgogle.com>, <myaccountgogle.com>, <giigle.com>, <hooglemaps.com>, <goggleearthmap.com>, <gogglescholar.com>, <gogglesmap.com>, and <goggleworks.com> domain names are registered with Media Elite Holdings Limited and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Media Elite Holdings Limited has verified that Respondent is bound by the Media Elite Holdings Limited 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 July 8, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 28, 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@40googlemail.com, postmaster@doctorgoogle.com, postmaster@earthgoogal.com, postmaster@getgoogal.com, postmaster@ggoogel.com, postmaster@ggoogl.com, postmaster@gogooel.com, postmaster@gogool.com, postmaster@goo9gle.com, postmaster@gooelc.com, postmaster@gooelg.com, postmaster@goofge.com, postmaster@goofke.com, postmaster@goofleearth.com, postmaster@gooflemail.com, postmaster@gooflgle.com, postmaster@googae.com, postmaster@googchrome.com, postmaster@googeldocs.com, postmaster@googelearth.com, postmaster@googglle.com, postmaster@googgmail.com, postmaster@googhle.com, postmaster@googkel.com, postmaster@googkemail.com, postmaster@googl3e.com, postmaster@googl4e.com, postmaster@google-redirect.com, postmaster@googleaerth.com, postmaster@googleapisd.com, postmaster@googlediscoveryeducation.com, postmaster@googleeaeth.com, postmaster@googleearath.com, postmaster@googleearh.com, postmaster@googleearht.com, postmaster@googleeart.com, postmaster@googleeartch.com, postmaster@googleeath.com, postmaster@googleeatrh.com, postmaster@googleeearth.com, postmaster@googleerath.com, postmaster@googleerth.com, postmaster@googlefights.com, postmaster@googlefree.com, postmaster@googlemaaps.com, postmaster@googlemapsle.com, postmaster@googlemapx.com, postmaster@googlemyactivity.com, postmaster@googlenet.com, postmaster@googlenewsonline.com, postmaster@googleo.com, postmaster@googleom.com, postmaster@googlepagerankchecker.com, postmaster@googlepasswords.com, postmaster@googlepmaps.com, postmaster@googlerarth.com, postmaster@googleschlor.com, postmaster@googleschollar.com, postmaster@googlesearchengine.com, postmaster@googlesholar.com, postmaster@googlespis.com, postmaster@googletransalate.com, postmaster@googletranslte.com, postmaster@googlevoive.com, postmaster@googlo.com, postmaster@googlogo.com, postmaster@googlrchrome.com, postmaster@googlrdocs.com, postmaster@googlrmeet.com, postmaster@googls.com, postmaster@goognle.com, postmaster@googsle.com, postmaster@goojle.com, postmaster@goolde.com, postmaster@gooleapis.com, postmaster@goolecrom.com, postmaster@gooledocs.com, postmaster@gooleeart.com, postmaster@gooleearth.com, postmaster@gooles.com, postmaster@goolgeearth.com, postmaster@goolgele.com, postmaster@goolgelmap.com, postmaster@goolgemap.com, postmaster@gooodle.com, postmaster@gooogleearth.com, postmaster@gooogogle.com, postmaster@goooogle.com, postmaster@gooooole.com, postmaster@goooooooooogle.com, postmaster@gooooooooooooooooooooooooogle.com, postmaster@goopgle.com, postmaster@goosle.com, postmaster@gootleearth.com, postmaster@gooyougle.com, postmaster@httpgoogle.com, postmaster@lh3googleusercontent.com, postmaster@mygoogleactivity.com, postmaster@ogoogle.com, postmaster@orggoogle.com, postmaster@sgoogle.com, postmaster@usgoogle.com, postmaster@waltoncommunitygooglemail.com, postmaster@whatisgoole.com, postmaster@withgoodle.com, postmaster@www-googlemail.com, postmaster@wwwgooge.com, postmaster@wwwgoogleearth.com, postmaster@wwwgooglre.com, postmaster@g0oogle.com, postmaster@ggoggle.com, postmaster@ggogledrive.com, postmaster@gogaleearth.com, postmaster@goggel.com, postmaster@gogggleearth.com, postmaster@goggleclass.com, postmaster@gogglee.com, postmaster@gogglegmail.com, postmaster@gogleearth.com, postmaster@gogleeearth.com, postmaster@imagesgogle.com, postmaster@myaccountgogle.com, postmaster@giigle.com, postmaster@hooglemaps.com, postmaster@goggleearthmap.com, postmaster@gogglescholar.com, postmaster@gogglesmap.com, and postmaster@goggleworks.com. Also on July 8, 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 August 3, 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant states that it is provides worldwide online search engine and other Internet services. The GOOGLE name and company were created in 1998 by Stanford Ph.D. candidates Larry Page and Sergey Brin. Since that time, the Complainant’s search engine has become one of the most highly recognized Internet search services in the world. Complainant’s primary website is located at <www.google.com>, and 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 is a global company, with offices throughout North America, Europe, Latin America, Asia Pacific, Africa, and the Middle East. The GOOGLE mark is routinely included in global lists of top brands. In 2020, Forbes ranked GOOGLE the second most-valuable brand globally. Complainant’s website has been recognized as one of the most popular destinations on the Internet for many years. comScore, among others, ranked Complainant’s among the most-visited groups of websites as early as 2004. Complainant asserts rights in the GOOGLE mark through its registration of the mark with multiple trademark agencies around the world, including in the United States in 2004, with filing date 1999. The mark is famous.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to its GOOGLE mark, as they all incorporate some version of the mark, either entirely or misspelled. Additionally, the disputed domain names append the “.com” gTLD, as well as add a generic or descriptive term, sometimes misspelled. Complainant makes a blanket statement: it does not analyze each disputed domain name in detail.
According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use its GOOGLE mark, nor is Respondent commonly known by the disputed domain names. Respondent is not using the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use since the resolving websites either are commercial in nature, hosting pay-per-click hyperlinks that promote third-party products or services, some of which compete with Complainant, or offer a disputed domain name for sale for a price in excess of out-of-pocket costs.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith. The resolving websites host third-party pay-per-click hyperlinks, showing Respondent attempts to attract users for commercial gain, or offer a dispute domain name for sale at a price in excess of out-of-pocket costs.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns rights in the mark GOOGLE dating back to at least 1999 and uses it provide Internet search and other services. The mark is famous.
The disputed domain names were was registered between 2000 and 2022.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to web sites that display click-through advertising links to products and services, some of which compete with those of Complainant. Some of the disputed domain names are offered for sale for a price in excess of out-of-pocket costs.
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 relevant date for the mark GOOGLE is the filing date. See Lenovo (Beijing) Limited Corporation China v. jeonggon seo, FA 1591638 (Forum Jan. 16, 2015) (finding Complainant has rights in the LENOVO mark dating back to the February 20, 2003 filing date with the USPTO as the trademark application was ultimately successful); see also Hershey Co. v. Reaves, FA 967818 (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”).
The following disputed domain names incorporate Complainant’s GOOGLE mark in its entirety, merely adding random letters, generic/descriptive terms, and/or misspelled versions of generic/descriptive terms, and the gTLD “.com”: <40googlemail.com>, <doctorgoogle.com>, <google-redirect.com>, <googleaerth.com>, <googleapisd.com>, <googlediscoveryeducation.com>, <googleeaeth.com>, <googleearath.com>, <googleearh.com>, <googleearht.com>, <googleeart.com>, <googleeartch.com>, <googleeath.com>, <googleeatrh.com>, <googleeearth.com>, <googleerath.com>, <googleerth.com>, <googlefights.com>, <googlefree.com>, <googlemaaps.com>, <googlemapsle.com>, <googlemapx.com>, <googlemyactivity.com>, <googlenet.com>, <googlenewsonline.com>, <googleo.com>, <googleom.com>, <googlepagerankchecker.com>, <googlepasswords.com>, <googlepmaps.com>, <googlerarth.com>, <googleschlor.com>, <googleschollar.com>, <googlesearchengine.com>, <googlesholar.com>, <googlespis.com>, <googletransalate.com>, <googletranslte.com>, <googlevoive.com>, <goolgele.com>, <goolgelmap.com>, <goolgemap.com>, <httpgoogle.com>, <lh3googleusercontent.com>, <mygoogleactivity.com>, <ogoogle.com>, <orggoogle.com>, <sgoogle.com>, <usgoogle.com>, <waltoncommunitygooglemail.com>, <www-googlemail.com>. Such changes are not sufficient to distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.”); see also Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Angelo Kioussis, FA 1784554 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“The domain name contains the mark in its entirety, with only the addition of the generic letters ‘sb’ and the digits ‘2018,’ plus the generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) ‘.com.’ These alterations of the mark, made in forming the domain name, do not save it from the realm of confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy.”). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the cited domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The following disputed domain names incorporate a misspelling of Complainant’s GOOGLE mark, in which a letter is replaced with a letter adjacent to it on a standard ASCII keyboard (e.g. “g” is replaced with “f” or “t” or ”h”, “l” is replaced with “k”, “e” is replaced with “3” or “4”), or two letters are transposed (e.g. “el” instead of “le”), or a letter is missing, merely adding random letters, generic/descriptive terms, and/or misspelled versions of generic/descriptive terms, and the gTLD “.com: <ggoogel.com>, <ggoogl.com>, <goo9gle.com>, <goofke.com>, <goofleearth.com>, <gooflemail.com>, <gooflgle.com>, <googeldocs.com>, <googelearth.com>, <googglle.com>, <googhle.com>, <googkel.com>, <googkemail.com>, <googl3e.com>, <googl4e.com>, <googlo.com>, <googlogo.com>, <googlrchrome.com>, <googlrdocs.com>, <googlrmeet.com>, <googls.com>, <, <goolecrom.com>, <gooledocs.com>, <gooleeart.com>, <gooleearth.com>, <gooles.com>, <goolgeearth.com>, <goolgele.com>, <goolgelmap.com>, <goolgemap.com>, <gootleearth.com>, <gooyougle.com>, <whatisgoole.com>, <withgoodle.com>, <wwwgooge.com>,, <wwwgooglre.com>, <g0oogle.com>, <ggoggle.com>, <ggogledrive.com>, <gogaleearth.com>, <goggel.com>, <gogggleearth.com>, <goggleclass.com>, <gogglee.com>, <gogglegmail.com>, <gogleearth.com>, <gogleeearth.com>, <imagesgogle.com>, <myaccountgogle.com>, <hooglemaps.com>, <goggleearthmap.com>, <gogglescholar.com>, <gogglesmap.com>, and <goggleworks.com>. Past panels have agreed that using misspelled versions of a mark still allows a finding of confusing similarity between the domain name and the mark. See Morgan Stanley v. Francis Mccarthy / Baltec Marine Llc, FA 1785347 (Forum June 8, 2018) (“The [<morganstonley.com> and <morganstainley.com>] Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks, as they fully incorporate the MORGAN STANLEY mark, varying it only by subtle misspellings, omitting a space between the words, and adding the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) ‘.com.’”); see also Google Inc. v. Jon G., FA106084 (Apr. 26, 2002) (ordering transfer of “googel.com” and noting that “The transposition of two letters does not create a distinct mark capable of overcoming a claim of confusing similarity, as the result reflects a very probable typographical error.”); see also MTD Products Inc v J Randall Shank, FA 1783050 (Forum June 27, 2018) (“The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it wholly incorporates the CUB CADET mark before appending the generic terms ‘genuine’ and ‘parts’ as well as the ‘.com’ gTLD.”). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the cited domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The following disputed domain names incorporate a string that is phonetically similar to Complainant’s GOOGLE mark, some merely adding a generic term and the gTLD “.com”: <earthgoogal.com>, <getgoogal.com>, <gogool.com>, <gooogleearth.com>, <goooogle.com>, <goooooooooogle.com>, <gooooooooooooooooooooooooogle.com>. According to 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0”), the assessment of confusing similarity “may also entail a more holistic aural or phonetic comparison of the complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name to ascertain confusing similarity”. See Am. Online, Inc. v. Triple E Holdings Ltd., FA 281584 (Forum July 15, 2004) (“Words that are spelled differently but are phonetically similar do not negate the confusing similarity of Respondent’s domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Quora, Inc. v. Santosh Kalwar, FA1910001866468 (Forum Nov. 15, 2019) (“The disputed domain name <kuora.co> corresponds to Complainant's registered QUORA trademark, but for the substitution of the letter "K" for the phonetically similar "Q" and the addition of the ".co" top-level domain. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark.”). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the cited domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The following disputed domain names are not obviously similar to Complainant’s GOOGLE mark: <gogooel.com>, <gooelc.com>, <gooelg.com>, <goofge.com> <googae.com>, <googchrome.com> <googgmail.com>, goognle.com>, <googsle.com>, <goojle.com>,<goolde.com>, <gooleapis.com>, <gooodle.com>, <gooogogle.com>, <gooooole.com>, <goopgle.com>, <goosle.com>,<giigle.com>. Complainant has not provided evidence to show confusing similarity, nor has it argued that some of the cited domain names incorporate a mark other than GOOGLE. The resolving websites do not explicitly refer to Complainant or its products or services. Thus the Panel finds that Complainant has failed to satisfy its burden of proof for this element of the Policy for the cited domain names. Accordingly, the Complaint will be dismissed, without prejudice, for the cited domain names, and they will not be further discussed See Netsertive, Inc. v. Ryan Howard / Howard Technologies, Ltd., FA 1721637 (Forum Apr. 17, 2017) (finding that because the complainant must prove all three elements under the Policy, the complainant’s failure to prove one of the elements makes further inquiry into the remaining element unnecessary); see also Wasatch Shutter Design v. Duane Howell / The Blindman, FA 1731056 (Forum June 23, 2017) (deciding not to inquire into the respondent’s rights or legitimate interests or its registration and use in bad faith where the complainant could not satisfy the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
What follows (apart from the operative part titled DECISION below) refers only to the domain names not cited in the previous paragraph.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), the Panel may reference WHOIS information to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by a disputed domain name. See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent’s use of the same). Here, the WHOIS information for each domain name shows that the registrant is “Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD”. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The resolving websites host multiple third-party pay-per-click hyperlinks, diverting internet users to websites not associated with Complainant or that offer competing services; or offer to sell one of the disputed domain names for a price in excess of out-of-pocket costs. These are 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 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); see also Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (finding that the respondent’s willingness to sell a contested domain name for more than its out-of-pocket costs provided additional evidence that Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the contested domain name). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names to make 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). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
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 names.
Indeed, as already noted, Respondent uses some of the disputed domain names to attract users for commercial gain by hosting pay-per-click hyperlinks, while offering others for sale for a price in excess of out-of-pocket costs. When a respondent uses a domain name to host pay-per-click hyperlinks to competing and unrelated businesses, or offers a disputed domain name for sale at an excessive price, a Panel may find bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) or (i). See Danbyg Ejendomme A/S v. lb Hansen / guerciotti, FA1504001613867 (Forum June 2, 2015) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the disputed domain name resolved to a website that offered both competing hyperlinks and hyperlinks unrelated to the complainant’s business); see also Staples, Inc. v. lin yanxiao, FA1505001617686 (Forum June 4, 2015) (“Respondent’s offering to sell the disputed domain name to a third party (in this case, the general public) supports a finding of bad faith registration and use.”); see also Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent's general offer of the disputed domain name registration for sale establishes that the domain name was registered in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).”). Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) or (i).
As noted above, the Panel finds that Complainant registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Thus Complainant has been found to have registered and used several domain names in bad faith. This is sufficient to establish a pattern of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See Philip Morris USA Inc. v. RapidClic / VAUCLIN Olivier, FA1520008 (Forum Nov. 7, 2013) (respondent’s registration of multiple infringing domain names established a pattern of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).
Finally, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark: the fact that numerous domain names contain either Complainant’s mark, or a misspelling of the mark, or a phonetically similar string, indicates that Respondent knew of Complainant’s mark when registering the disputed domain names. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) (“There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy.”); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”); see also Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having evaluated the elements of the Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED for the disputed domain names <gogooel.com>, <gooelc.com>, <gooelg.com>, <goofge.com>, <googae.com>, <googchrome.com>, <googgmail.com>, goognle.com>, <googsle.com>, <goojle.com>, <goolde.com>, <gooleapis.com>, <gooodle.com>, <gooogogle.com>, <gooooole.com>, <goopgle.com>, <goosle.com>, <giigle.com> and GRANTED for the others.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <40googlemail.com>, <doctorgoogle.com>, <earthgoogal.com>, <getgoogal.com>, <ggoogel.com>, <ggoogl.com>, <gogool.com>, <goo9gle.com>, <goofke.com>, <goofleearth.com>, <gooflemail.com>, <gooflgle.com>, <googeldocs.com>, <googelearth.com>, <googglle.com>, <googhle.com>, <googkel.com>, <googkemail.com>, <googl3e.com>, <googl4e.com>, <google-redirect.com>, <googleaerth.com>, <googleapisd.com>, <googlediscoveryeducation.com>, <googleeaeth.com>, <googleearath.com>, <googleearh.com>, <googleearht.com>, <googleeart.com>, <googleeartch.com>, <googleeath.com>, <googleeatrh.com>, <googleeearth.com>, <googleerath.com>, <googleerth.com>, <googlefights.com>, <googlefree.com>, <googlemaaps.com>, <googlemapsle.com>, <googlemapx.com>, <googlemyactivity.com>, <googlenet.com>, <googlenewsonline.com>, <googleo.com>, <googleom.com>, <googlepagerankchecker.com>, <googlepasswords.com>, <googlepmaps.com>, <googlerarth.com>, <googleschlor.com>, <googleschollar.com>, <googlesearchengine.com>, <googlesholar.com>, <googlespis.com>, <googletransalate.com>, <googletranslte.com>, <googlevoive.com>, <googlo.com>, <googlogo.com>, <googlrchrome.com>, <googlrdocs.com>, <googlrmeet.com>, <googls.com>, <goolecrom.com>, <gooledocs.com>, <gooleeart.com>, <gooleearth.com>, <gooles.com>, <goolgeearth.com>, <goolgele.com>, <goolgelmap.com>, <goolgemap.com>, <gooogleearth.com>, <goooogle.com>, <goooooooooogle.com>, <gooooooooooooooooooooooooogle.com>, <gootleearth.com>, <gooyougle.com>, <httpgoogle.com>, <lh3googleusercontent.com>, <mygoogleactivity.com>, <ogoogle.com>, <orggoogle.com>, <sgoogle.com>, <usgoogle.com>, <waltoncommunitygooglemail.com>, <whatisgoole.com>, <withgoodle.com>, <www-googlemail.com>, <wwwgooge.com>, <wwwgoogleearth.com>, <wwwgooglre.com>, <g0oogle.com>, <ggoggle.com>, <ggogledrive.com>, <gogaleearth.com>, <goggel.com>, <gogggleearth.com>, <goggleclass.com>, <gogglee.com>, <gogglegmail.com>, <gogleearth.com>, <gogleeearth.com>, <imagesgogle.com>, <myaccountgogle.com>, <hooglemaps.com>, <goggleearthmap.com>, <gogglescholar.com>, <gogglesmap.com>, and <goggleworks.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
And it is Ordered, without prejudice, that the <gogooel.com>, <gooelc.com>, <gooelg.com>, <goofge.com>, <googae.com>, <googchrome.com>, <googgmail.com>, <goognle.com>, <googsle.com>, <goojle.com>,<goolde.com>, <gooleapis.com>, <gooodle.com>, <gooogogle.com>, <gooooole.com>, <goopgle.com>, <goosle.com>, <giigle.com> domain names REMAIN WITH Respondent.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: August 3, 3022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page