Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Google Inc. v. E. D. Havik
Claim Number: FA0206000114604
PARTIES
Complainant
is Google Inc., Mountain View, CA,
USA (“Complainant”) represented by Julia
Anne Matheson, of Finnegan Henderson
Farabow Garrett & Dunner L.L.P.
Respondent is E. D. Havik,
Koog Aan De Zaan, NETHERLANDS (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <google4mp3.com>,
registered with Bulkregister.
PANEL
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.
James
A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on June 13, 2002; the Forum received
a hard copy of the
Complaint on June 14, 2002.
On
June 18, 2002, Bulkregister confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain
name <google4mp3.com> is
registered with Bulkregister and that Respondent is the current registrant of
the name. Bulkregister has verified
that Respondent is bound by the Bulkregister registration agreement and has
thereby agreed to resolve domain-name
disputes brought by third parties in
accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the
“Policy”).
On
June 19, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting
a deadline of July 9,
2002 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted
to Respondent via e-mail,
post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on
Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts,
and to postmaster@google4mp3.com by e-mail.
Having
received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and
methods as were used for the Commencement Notification,
the Forum transmitted
to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On
July 16, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by
a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed James
A. Carmody, Esq., 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.” 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.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant
requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A.
Complainant
The
<Google4mp3.com> domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant's GOOGLE mark.
Respondent
has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent
registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
B.
Respondent
Respondent
failed to submit a Response.
FINDINGS
Complainant has done business under the
GOOGLE mark since 1997. Since that time
Complainant has become one of the largest, most highly recognized, and widely
used Internet search services in the
world.
Complainant’s primary website is located at <google.com>. Complainant’s website is one of the most
popular destinations on the Internet.
It was ranked number 5 of the Top 25 Web Properties by Nielsen NetRatings.
Complainant is the owner of two trademark
applications with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Application
Serial Numbers
75-554461, 75-978469).
Complainant also has a trademark in Australia (Reg. No. 788234), Canada
(Reg. No. TMA539576), Hong Kong (Reg. No. 168817/1999), Israel
( Reg.
No.126,479), Japan (Reg. No. 4,478,963), Mexico (Reg. No. 622722), New Zealand
(Reg. No. 306520), and the Russian Federation
(Reg. No. 191,819).
Respondent registered the <google4mp3.com>
domain name on March 1, 2002.
Respondent’s website is designed to mimic the distinctive features of
Complainant’s <google.com> website.
Respondent uses Complainant’s GOOGLE mark in the same distinctive
lettering and colors and states that “This page is an ‘Index Search’
utility
that builds a query for Google TM.”
Furthermore, the search results at Respondent’s website are designed to
look just like Complainant’s.
DISCUSSION
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.”
In view
of Respondent's failure to submit a Response, the Panel shall decide this
administrative proceeding on the basis of the Complainant's
undisputed
representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and
draw such inferences it considers appropriate
pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of
the Rules.
Paragraph
4(a) of the Policy requires that the 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 the Respondent is identical or confusingly
similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant
has rights; and
(2)
the 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.
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established, through
numerous trademark registrations and continuous use, that it has rights in the
GOOGLE mark. Respondent’s <google4mp3.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s GOOGLE mark because it
incorporates Complainant’s entire mark and merely
adds the “4mp3” suffix. The addition of a string of numbers and
letters to Complainant’s well-known mark does not overcome a claim of confusing
similarity. See Am. Online, Inc. v. Fu, D2000-1374
(WIPO Dec. 11, 2000) (finding that adding the suffixes "502" and
"520" to the ICQ trademark does
little to reduce the potential for
confusion); see also Omnitel
Pronto Italia S.p.A. v. Carlo Dalla Bella, D2000-1641 (WIPO Mar. 12, 2001)
(finding that the contested <omnitel2000.com> domain name is confusingly
similar to the OMNITEL
trademark).
Furthermore, the addition of a generic top-level domain, such as “.com,”
is insignificant when determining whether a domain name is
confusingly similar. See Pomellato S.p.A v. Tonetti, D2000-0493 (WIPO July 7, 2000) (finding
<pomellato.com> identical to Complainant’s mark because the generic
top-level domain
(gTLD) “.com” after the name POMELLATO is not relevant).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has
been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Respondent has failed to come forward
with a Response. Therefore, it is
presumed that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed
domain name. See Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency
Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that Respondents’ failure to
respond can be construed as an admission that they have no
legitimate interest
in the domain names).
Furthermore, when Respondent fails to
submit a Response the Panel is permitted to make all inferences in favor of
Complainant. See Talk City, Inc.
v. Robertson, D2000-0009, (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000)
(“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all
allegations of the Complaint”).
Respondent is using a confusingly similar
domain name in order to attract Internet users interested in Complainant to
Respondent’s
website. Furthermore,
Respondent has created the website to mimic Complainant’s website thereby
creating confusion as to the source, sponsorship
and affiliation of the website
at the <google4mp3.com> domain name. This type of use is not considered to be a bona fide offering of
goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial
or fair use pursuant Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
See Vapor Blast Mfg. Co. v.
R & S Tech., Inc., FA 96577 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 27, 2001) (finding
that Respondent’s commercial use of the domain name to confuse and divert
Internet
traffic is not a legitimate use of the domain name); see also Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Karpachev, 188 F.Supp.2d 110, 114 (D. Mass. 2002) (finding
that, because the Respondent's sole purpose in selecting the domain names was
to cause confusion with the
Complainant's website and marks, it's use of the
names was not in connection with the offering of goods or services or any other
fair use).
Respondent has not come
forward with any evidence that it is commonly known as GOOGLE4MP3 or <google4mp3.com>,
the only evidence before this Panel suggests that Respondent is commonly known
as “E.D. Havik,” not GOOGLE4MP3. As a
result, Respondent has failed to establish that it has rights or legitimate
interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Gallup Inc. v. Amish
Country Store, FA 96209
(Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that Respondent does not have rights
in a domain name when Respondent is not known
by the mark); see also Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp.,
D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where
Respondent was not commonly known by the mark and
never applied for a license
or permission from Complainant to use the trademarked name).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)
has been satisfied.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Based on the well-known nature of
Complainant’s GOOGLE mark, the popularity of its website, and the care Respondent
took to copy Complainant’s
website’s distinctive features, it can be inferred
that Respondent was aware of Complainant’s rights in the GOOGLE mark when it
registered
<google4mp3.com>.
Registration of a domain name incorporating another’s mark, despite
actual or constructive notice is evidence of bad faith registration
pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Entrepreneur
Media, Inc. v. Smith, [2002] USCA9 115; 279 F.3d 1135, 1148 (9th Cir. Feb. 11, 2002) (finding that
"[w]here an alleged infringer chooses a mark he knows to be similar to
another, one can
infer an intent to confuse"); see also Samsonite Corp. v. Colony Holding, FA
94313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2000) (finding that evidence of bad faith
includes actual or constructive knowledge of a commonly
known mark at the time
of registration).
Furthermore, Respondent’s use of the
disputed domain name, confusingly similar in all aspects to Complainant’s mark
and very popular
website located at <google.com>, is evidence of bad
faith use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because it infringes upon Complainant’s
goodwill by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source of the <google4mp3.com>
domain name for Respondent’s commercial gain. See State Fair of Texas
v. Granbury.com, FA 95288 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 12, 2000) (finding bad
faith where Respondent registered the domain name <bigtex.net> to
infringe
on Complainant’s goodwill and attract Internet users to Respondent’s
website); see also Am. Online,
Inc. v. Tencent Comm. Corp., FA 93668 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2000)
(finding bad faith where Respondent registered and used an infringing domain
name to attract
users to a website sponsored by Respondent).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)
has been satisfied.
DECISION
Having established all three elements
required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the requested relief
shall be hereby
granted.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the
domain name <google4mp3.com> be transferred from Respondent
to Complainant.
James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist
Dated: July 18, 2002
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/1201.html