The Complainant is Google Inc., California, United States of America, represented by Ranjan Narula Associates, India.
The Respondent is Dkeystudlo Inc., Santiago, Chile. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, Inc. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 9, 2011. On August 9, 2011, the Center transmitted by email to GoD, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 10, 2011, GoD, Inc. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on August 12, 2011 with a correction to the Registrar’s details.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 12, 2011. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was September 1, 2011. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 2, 2011.
The Center appointed Sir Ian Barker as the sole panelist in this matter on September 9, 2011. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant is a Delaware corporation founded in 1997, which operates the world’s largest search engine. Internet users worldwide can access the Complainant’s principal website from most desktop PCs and mobile and wireless platforms. They can also access a wide rang of information offered in many different languages.
The Complainant’s website receives some 581 million visitors a month. Its brand is ranked as one of the world’s most valuable. The Complainant offers a wide range of other products and services, including “Google Earth” which creates on-line maps of localities worldwide.
The Complainant owns numerous trademarks registered in many countries for the word “Google”, including a registration in Chile where the Respondent is situated. The Complainant’s brand has been widely promoted throughout the world since 1997. Its Google Network is estimated to reach more than 80% of worldwide Internet users. It has one of the largest advertising networks with an image index of some two billion items. It has partners, customers and advertisers worldwide. It owns a large number of domain name registrations in a large number of countries.
The Complainant has offices worldwide – including in Chile. It employs some 20,000 people and offers products and services in over 100 languages. Its revenue for 2010 was USD 29,321 million.
The disputed domain name was registered on June 24, 2009. It currently resolves to a website that imitates the Complainant’s website and incorporates the Complainant’s trademarked brand. The Complainant gave no permission to the Respondent to use its mark in any way. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant gave it none. None of the defences under Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy applies.
Given the fame of the Complainant’s mark, and its use and popularity all over the world, the disputed domain name must have been registered and is being used by the Respondent in bad faith.
The suffix “ssl” indicates “Secure Sockets Layer” which connotes a method of encrypting information on the Internet. This is likely to confuse Internet users that they are at a more secure site. The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name can only create confusion and lead Internet users to believe that the site has some connection with the Complainant. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Under Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to prevail, a complainant must prove the following elements of a claim for transfer or cancellation of a respondent’s domain name:
(i) that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
(ii) that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and
(iii) that the respondent’s domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark. The disputed domain name fully incorporates the trademarked word GOOGLE. The suffix ‘ssl’ does not eliminate the confusingly similar aspect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant has satisfied the first limb of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant gave the Respondent no rights or legitimate interests to reflect its trademark in a domain name.
In the absence of any evidence which might suggest the application of one of the defences provided by Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
It defies belief that anyone using the Internet in Chile would not have heard of the Complainant and its famous mark in June 2009 when the disputed domain name was registered. The inference of bad faith registration is overwhelming.
Likewise, bad faith use. Google must be one of the best-known and most famous brands associated with the Internet. In this Panel’s view, the Respondent’s website is just a cheeky attempt to capitalize on the fame of the Complainant’s mark and to confuse Internet users into thinking that the Respondent’s site has some connection with the Complainant.
This is a clear case of cybersquatting with the Respondent using a world-renowned name in bad faith and in a blatant and rather unsubtle way. The third limb of Paragraph 4(a) has been satisfied. 7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name, be transferred to the Complainant.
Sir Ian Barker
Sole Panelist
Dated: September 14, 2011
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy