Google LLC v. Adam Neil / East London
Claim Number: FA2302002033690
Complainant is Google LLC (“Complainant”), represented by James R. Davis, II of Perkins Coie LLP, Washington DC, USA. Respondent is Adam Neil / East London (“Respondent”), United Kingdom.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <maingoogle.com>, <googledrive.online>, <googledrive.email>, <googledrive.network>, <google-update.com> and <google-update.pw>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
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 Forum electronically on February 27, 2023; Forum received payment on February 27, 2023.
On February 28, 2023, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <maingoogle.com>, <googledrive.online>, <googledrive.email>, <googledrive.network>, <google-update.com> and <google-update.pw> domain names are registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 March 2, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 22, 2023 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@maingoogle.com, postmaster@googledrive.online, postmaster@googledrive.email, postmaster@googledrive.network, postmaster@google-update.com, and postmaster@google-update.pw. Also on March 2, 2023, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On March 27, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS
In the instant proceedings, Complainant has 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.”
The Panel finds that the domain names are under common control as Respondent has admitted, in its correspondence with Complainant, that it owns all the disputed domain names. This is sufficient to find that the domain names were registered by the same domain name holder. See The Valspar Corporation v. Zhou Zhiliang / zhouzhiliang / Zhiliang Zhou / Eric Chow / Visspa Ltd., FA100800133934 (Forum Sept. 28, 2010); see also BBY Solutions, Inc. v. White Apple / Dev Kumar, FA1805001787251 (Forum June 20, 2018).
Consequently, the Panel will rule on all of the contested domain names, and the two registrants are collectively referred to as “Respondent”.
A. Complainant
Complainant states that it was created in 1998 by Stanford Ph.D. candidates Larry Page and Sergey Brin. Since that time, Complainant’s search engine has become one of the most highly recognized Internet search services in the world. Complainant’s primary website is <www.google.com>. Complainant has rights in the GOOGLE mark through its registration in the United States in 1998. The mark is registered elsewhere around the world and it is famous.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to its GOOGLE mark as they fully incorporate the mark and merely add a generic word or descriptive term, a hyphen, and a generic top-level-domain name ("gTLD").
According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use the GOOGLE mark. Respondent has not used the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent offered to sell the disputed domain names for a profit to Complainant. Several of the disputed domain names are flagged as malicious.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith. Respondent has offered to sell to Complainant the disputed domain names for a price in excess of out-of-pocket costs. Several of the disputed domain names are flagged as malicious. Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names. One of the WHOIS entries provides false contact information. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s interests in the mark because Complainant’s mark is distinctive and well-known.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the mark GOOGLE dating back to 1998.
The disputed domain names were registered in 2018, 2020, and 2022.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The disputed domain names have not been used since they were registered by Respondent; one of the WHOIS entries provides false contact information.
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 names fully incorporate Complainant’s GOOGLE mark and merely add a generic word or descriptive term, a hyphen, and a gTLD. The addition of a generic or descriptive term, a hyphen, and a gTLD fails to sufficiently 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 Vanguard Group Inc. v. Proven Fin. Solutions, FA 572937 (Forum Nov. 18, 2005) (holding that the addition of both the word “advisors” and the gTLD “.com” did not sufficiently alter the disputed domain name to negate a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Health Devices Corp. v. Aspen S T C, FA 158254 (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).”); see also Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Svensson Viljae, FA 1784650 (Forum June 1, 2018) (finding confusing similarity where “[t]he disputed domain name <skechers-outlet.com> adds a hyphen and the generic term ‘outlet’ to Complainant's registered SKECHERS mark, and appends the ‘.com’ top-level domain.”). Therefore the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
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), WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA1506001626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named “Fred Wallace” as registrant of the disputed domain name). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Adam Neil / East London”. Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
While not dispositive for the instant case, the Panel notes that Complainant presents evidence showing that some of the disputed domain names have been flagged as malicious.
According to paragraph 4.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0”), a Panel may conduct limited factual research regarding disputed domain names:
Noting in particular the general powers of a panel articulated inter alia in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the UDRP Rules, it has been accepted that a panel may undertake limited factual research into matters of public record if it would consider such information useful to assessing the case merits and reaching a decision.
This may include visiting the website linked to the disputed domain name in order to obtain more information about the respondent or its use of the domain name, consulting historical resources such as the Internet Archive (www.archive.org) in order to obtain an indication of how a domain name may have been used in the relevant past, reviewing dictionaries or encyclopedias (e.g., Wikipedia), or accessing trademark registration databases.
A search in the Internet Archive indicates that the disputed domain names have not been used since they were registered by Respondent. Failure to make an active use of a domain name demonstrates that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial fair use. See Bloomberg L.P. v. SC Media Servs. & Info. SRL, FA 296583 (Forum Sept. 2, 2004) (“Respondent is wholly appropriating Complainant’s mark and is not using the <bloomberg.ro> domain name in connection with an active website. The Panel finds that the [failure to make an active use] of a domain name that is identical to Complainant’s mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (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 noted above, the disputed domain names have not been used since they were registered by Respondent. According to paragraph 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0): “From the inception of the UDRP, panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put.”
In the present case, Complainant’s trademark is well known. It is difficult to envisage any use of the disputed domain name that would not violate the Policy, see Morgan Stanley v. TONY / shentony, FA 1637186 (Forum Oct. 10, 2015) (“Respondent registered the disputed domain name [MORGANSTANLEY.ONLINE] in bad faith because . . . it is difficult to envisage any use of the disputed domain name that would not violate the Policy”); see also Singapore Airlines Ltd. v. European Travel Network, D2000-0641 (WIPO Aug. 29, 2000) (where selection of disputed domain name is so obviously connected to complainant’s well-known trademark, use by someone with no connection with complainant suggests opportunistic bad faith); see also Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., Sheraton Int’l IP, LLC, Westin Hotel Mgmt., L.P. v. Jingjing Tang, D2014-1040 (WIPO Aug. 19, 2014) (“The Panel finds that the [WESTIN] Marks are not such that could legitimately be adopted by traders other than for the purpose of creating an impression of an association with Complainant. Thus, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith”).
There has been no response to the Complaint and Respondent used a privacy service, that is, it attempted to conceal its identity. Given these circumstances, the Panel finds that, in this particular case, a finding of bad faith use can be inferred even though the disputed domain name is not being actively used. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000).
Further, Respondent has registered multiple domain names infringing on Complainant’s mark. Registration of confusingly similar domain names that all infringe on a complainant’s mark may evince bad faith use and registration per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See United States Postal Service v. Yongkun Wang, FA 1788170 (Forum July 11, 2018) (“Complainant contends that Respondent is a serial cybersquatter as evidenced by its registering four separate domain names all incorporating Complainant’s USPS mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith 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).
While not dispositive for the instant case, the Panel notes that Respondent has been found to have registered and used a domain name in bad faith in a prior UDRP proceeding involving Complainant.
Finally, one of the WHOIS entries is false, since it provides the following name and address: “East London, Aldgate East, London, BR1 1AA UK”. The UK postcode “BR1 1AA” is the postcode for Bromley; “Aldgate East” is the name of a station in London, not a street, and its postcode is “E1 7PT”. Providing false or misleading WHOIS information can evince bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See CNU ONLINE Holdings, LLC v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA1504001614972 (Forum May 29, 2015) (“As the Panel sees that Respondent has provided false or misleading WHOIS information, the Panel finds bad faith in Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”); see also ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd v. Global Mgr, FA 1702001716963 (Forum Mar. 30, 2017) (“Complainant contends that Respondent provided false contact information while registering the disputed domain. Registering a confusingly similar domain name using false contact information can evince bad faith registration.”); see also j2 Global Canada, Inc. and Landslide Technologies, Inc. v. Vijay S Kumar/Strategic Outsourcing Services Pvt Ltd, FA 1411001647718 (Forum Jan. 4, 2016) (“False or misleading contact information indicates bad faith registration and use.”); see also Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Phillip Thomas/Chevron Pacific, FA 1504001615524 (Forum May 29, 2015) (“Complainant’s use of false registration data and its unexplained redirection of the disputed domain name to Complainant’s own website are further indications of such bad faith.”); see also McDonald’s Corp. v. Holy See, FA 0304000155458 (Forum June 27, 2003) (“The Panel finds that Respondent provided false contact information in the registration certificates and that such actions, even though not specifically enumerated in the Policy, may form the basis for a finding of bad faith registration and use.”); see also Mars, Incorporated v. RaveClub Berlin, FA 0106000097361 (Forum July 16, 2001) (providing false registration and contact information for infringing domain names evidenced Respondent’s bad faith). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith under 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 <maingoogle.com>, <googledrive.online>, <googledrive.email>, <googledrive.network>, <google-update.com> and <google-update.pw> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: March 27, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page