Google LLC v. Privacy Protection / Dynamic Dolphin Privacy Protect
Claim Number: FA2206001999228
Complainant is Google LLC (“Complainant”), represented by James R. Davis, II of Perkins Coie LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Privacy Protection / Dynamic Dolphin Privacy Protect (“Respondent”), USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <gootgle.com>, <comyoutube.com>, <gmailgmail.com>, <gmailsignin.com>, <gmaul.com>, <gmsail.com>, <gogle.net>, <goglego.com>, <goglemap.com>, <goo0gle.com>, <googelcom.com>, <googes.com>, <googfe.com>, <googgl.com>, <googlehamer.com>, <googlej.com>, <googlelive.com>, <googlemx.com>, <googlep.com>, <googless.com>, <googpe.com>, <googul.com>, <goolemap.com>, <goolgr.com>, <gtmail.com>, <oyutube.com>, <traslategoogle.com>, <wwwggogle.com>, <wwwgoolge.com>, <wwwyutube.com>, <wyoutube.com>, <youotube.com>, <youtuybe.com>, and <youytube.com> (collectively “Domain Names”), registered with Gransy, S.R.O. and Gransy S.R.O D/B/A Subreg.Cz.
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.
Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 6, 2022; the Forum received payment on June 6, 2022.
On June 8, 2022 and Jun 13, 2022, Gransy, S.R.O.and Gransy S.R.O D/B/A Subreg.Cz confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <gootgle.com>, <comyoutube.com>, <gmailgmail.com>, <gmailsignin.com>, <gmaul.com>, <gmsail.com>, <gogle.net>, <goglego.com>, <goglemap.com>, <goo0gle.com>, <googelcom.com>, <googes.com>, <googfe.com>, <googgl.com>, <googlehamer.com>, <googlej.com>, <googlelive.com>, <googlemx.com>, <googlep.com>, <googless.com>, <googpe.com>, <googul.com>, <goolemap.com>, <goolgr.com>, <gtmail.com>, <oyutube.com>, <traslategoogle.com>, <wwwggogle.com>, <wwwgoolge.com>, <wwwyutube.com>, <wyoutube.com>, <youotube.com>, <youtuybe.com>, and <youytube.com> domain names are registered with them and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Each of the Registrars has verified that Respondent is bound by their 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 14, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 5, 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@gootgle.com, postmaster@comyoutube.com, postmaster@gmailgmail.com, postmaster@gmailsignin.com, postmaster@gmaul.com, postmaster@gmsail.com, postmaster@gogle.net, postmaster@goglego.com, postmaster@goglemap.com, postmaster@goo0gle.com, postmaster@googelcom.com, postmaster@googes.com, postmaster@googfe.com, postmaster@googgl.com, postmaster@googlehamer.com, postmaster@googlej.com, postmaster@googlelive.com, postmaster@googlemx.com, postmaster@googlep.com, postmaster@googless.com, postmaster@googpe.com, postmaster@googul.com, postmaster@goolemap.com, postmaster@goolgr.com, postmaster@gtmail.com, postmaster@oyutube.com, postmaster@traslategoogle.com, postmaster@wwwggogle.com, postmaster@wwwgoolge.com, postmaster@wwwyutube.com, postmaster@wyoutube.com, postmaster@youotube.com, postmaster@youtuybe.com, postmaster@youytube.com. Also on June 14, 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 July 11, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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 is a Delaware limited liability company located in Mountain View, California, and the owner of the trademarks YOUTUBE, GOOGLE and GMAIL. It operates one of the most well-known search engines (under the GOOGLE mark), e-mail services (under the GMAIL mark) and video sharing sites (under the YOUTUBE mark). Complainant has rights in the YOUTUBE, GOOGLE and GMAIL marks through Complainant’s registration of the marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 3,711,233, registered November 17, 2009 [YOUTUBE], Reg. No. 2,884,502, registered September 14, 2002 [GOOGLE] and Reg. No. 3,353,237, registered December 11, 2007 [GMAIL]). The Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s GOOGLE, YOUTUBE, or GMAIL mark because they incorporate at least one of the marks, or misspell Complainant’s marks, such as adding or deleting letters or terms, and utilizing the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) to form a domain name.
Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names because Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names nor has Respondent been authorized to use Complainant’s marks. Respondent makes use of a privacy service to conceal its identity. Respondent is not using the Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the Domain Names resolve to a variety of websites featuring pay-per-click hyperlinks or offers to sell the Domain Names.
Respondent registered and uses the Domain Names in bad faith because Respondent makes an offer to sell some of the Domain Names and all the Domain Names resolve to websites with hyperlinks or third-party content, including adult-oriented content. Further bad faith is evidenced through Respondent’s registration of multiple domain names that are at issue in the present case and Respondent’s use of a privacy service. Respondent acted with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the GOOGLE, GMAIL, and YOUTUBE marks.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant holds trademark rights for the YOUTUBE, GOOGLE and GMAIL marks. Each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to one of Complainant’s YOUTUBE, GOOGLE and GMAIL marks. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names and that Respondent registered and has used all the Domain Names save <gtmail.com> in bad faith.
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”).
Complainant has rights in the GOOGLE, YOUTUBE and GMAIL marks based upon registration of the marks with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 3,711,233, registered November 17, 2009 [YOUTUBE], Reg. No. 2,884,502, registered September 14, 2002 [GOOGLE] and Reg. No. 3,353,237, registered December 11, 2007 [GMAIL]). Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently confers a complainant’s rights in a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Target Brands, Inc. v. jennifer beyer, FA 1738027 (Forum July 31, 2017) ("Complainant has rights in its TARGET service mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by virtue of its registration of the mark with a national trademark authority, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).).
The Panel finds that each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to either the GOOGLE, YOUTUBE or GMAIL marks. Each of the Domain Names incorporates one of the GOOGLE, YOUTUBE or GMAIL marks (or an obviously misspelled version of that mark) and the gTLD “.com”. In some cases the Domain Names then also add a descripitive word or element (such as www or com). None of the changes prevent a finding that each Domain Name is confusingly similar to one of the Complainant’s marks. A domain name may be found to be identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark despite the addition or removal of letters or terms and the addition of a gTLD. See Twitch Interactive, Inc. v. zhang qin, FA 1626511 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding, “The relevant comparison then resolves to the trademark, TWITCH, with the term, ‘titch,’ which, as can be readily seen, merely removes the letter ‘w’ from the trademark. In spite of that omission the compared integers remain visually and aurally very similar and so Panel finds them to be confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy.”). Furthermore adding generic words, letters, and a top-level-domain to a mark fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See 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.”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the GOOGLE, YOUTUBE or GMAIL marks. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. 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)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA1505001621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where “Privacy Service” was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS lists “Privacy Protection / Dynamic Dolphin Privacy Protect” as the registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant’s unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The Domain Names either resolve to websites featuring pay-per-click links, third party websites which purport to offer competing services, websites offering the Domain Names for sale or fraudulent websites that appear on their face to deliver malware or require the entry of passwords or personal information. Such uses are not indicative of rights or legitimate interests per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) (”Respondent’s use of <edcorlando.xyz> also does not qualify as a bona fide offering… the <edcorlando.xyz> domain name resolves to a site containing pay-per-click hyperlinks and advertisements… Since these kinds of advertisements generate revenue for the holder of a domain name, they cannot be noncommercial; further, they do not qualify as a bona fide offering.”); see also Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 1785199 (Forum June 5, 2018) (“Respondent uses the <coechella.com> domain name to direct internet users to a website which is used to attempt to install malware on visiting devices. Using the domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii).”); see also Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. Huang Jia Lin, FA1504001614086 (Forum May 25, 2015) (“Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent’s general attempt to sell the disputed domain name is further evidence of Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that, at the time of registration of each of the Domain Names save the <gtmail.com> domain name (collectively “Bad Faith Domain Names”) between 2000 and 2010, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s YOUTUBE, GOOGLE and GMAIL marks. The Panel reaches this conclusion based on the ubiquity of the YOUTUBE, GOOGLE and GMAIL marks at the time each of the Bad Faith Domain Names were registered the and the use of a number of the Bad Faith Domain Names to resolve to websites that contain pay-per-click links that are in respect of Complainant’s business. Furthermore it is improbable that a party would register 33 domain names that consist of misspellings or incorporations of Complainant’s YOUTUBE, GOOGLE and GMAIL marks over a 10 year period in the absence of any awareness of these marks. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Bad Faith Domain Names in bad faith to create confusion with Complainant’s YOUTUBE, GOOGLE and GMAIL marks for commercial gain by using the confusingly similar Bad Faith Domain Names to resolve to websites containing either advertisements and links to third party websites for commercial gain, offers to sell the relevant domain name or malware. Use of a confusingly similar domain name to redirect Internet users to a website containing advertisements and links to third party websites for commercial gain is indicative of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). 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). The same is the case for the use of a confusingly similar domain name to distribute malware. See Google, Inc. v. Petrovich, FA 1339345 (Forum Sept. 23, 2010) (finding that disputed domain names which distribute malware to Internet users’ computers demonstrate Respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). Finally offering a disputed domain name for sale can demonstrate bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). Airbnb, Inc. v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, FA 1821386 (Forum Jan. 10, 2019) (“Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <airbnbb.com> domain name in bad faith by offering it for sale. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) with respect to the Bad Faith Domain Names.
Respondent’s registration of the <gtmail.com> domain name on November 14, 1997 predates Complainant’s first claimed rights in the GMAIL mark (which relates to a service launched in 2004), and thus Complainant cannot prove registration in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), as the Policy requires a showing of bad faith registration and use. See Platterz v. Andrew Melcher, FA 1729887 (Forum June 19, 2017) (“Whatever the merits of Complainant’s arguments that Respondent is using the Domain Name in bad faith, those arguments are irrelevant, as a complainant must prove both bad faith registration and bad faith use in order to prevail.”); see also Faster Faster, Inc. DBA Alta Motors v. Jeongho Yoon c/o AltaMart, FA 1708272 (Forum Feb. 6, 2017) (“Respondent registered the domain name more than a decade before Complainant introduced the ALTA MOTORS mark in commerce.”) Respondent could not have entertained bad faith intentions respecting the GMAIL mark because it could not have contemplated Complainant’s then non-existent rights in GMAIL mark at the moment the <gtmail.com> domain name was registered. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent did not register the Domain Name <gtmail.com> in bad faith.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy with respect to the Bad Faith Domain Names, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <gootgle.com>, <comyoutube.com>, <gmailgmail.com>, <gmailsignin.com>, <gmaul.com>, <gmsail.com>, <gogle.net>, <goglego.com>, <goglemap.com>, <goo0gle.com>, <googelcom.com>, <googes.com>, <googfe.com>, <googgl.com>, <googlehamer.com>, <googlej.com>, <googlelive.com>, <googlemx.com>, <googlep.com>, <googless.com>, <googpe.com>, <googul.com>, <goolemap.com>, <goolgr.com>, <oyutube.com>, <traslategoogle.com>, <wwwggogle.com>, <wwwgoolge.com>, <wwwyutube.com>, <wyoutube.com>, <youotube.com>, <youtuybe.com>, and <youytube.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant and that the <gtmail.com> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.
Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist
Dated: July 12, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page