The Complainant is Google Inc. of Mountain View, California, United States of America represented by Ranjan Narula Associates, India.
The Respondent is ShaheenYounas of Sindh, Pakistan. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”), is registered with OnlineNic, Inc. d/b/a China-C (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 5, 2012. On July 5, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On July 6, 2012, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
The Center verified that 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 July 10, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 30, 2012. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 1, 2012.
The Center appointed Tony Willoughby as the sole panelist in this matter on August 6, 2012. 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 located in California, United States of America. It is very well-known worldwide among those engaged in Internet activity, being the provider of the Google Internet search engine. It is also very well-known worldwide for its YouTube website, launched in 2006, which inter alia enables Internet users to upload, view and share video files.
The Complainant is the registered proprietor of a wide variety of trade mark registrations around the world featuring the YouTube name, one of which is United States registration No. 3525802 filed January 30, 2006 (registered October 28, 2008) YouTube (standard character mark) for a wide variety of goods and services in classes 9, 35, 38, 41 and 42.
In November 2006, Time Magazine heralded YouTube as Time’s Invention of the Year.
The Domain Name was registered on December 6, 2008 and resolves to a website featuring links to a miscellany of websites many of them being sites offering access to online music and videos. The Panel has visited the site and finds that some of the links visible to a United Kingdom-based visitor are links to the Complainant’s websites. Others are links to commercial sites offering a variety of goods and services ranging from face creams to dating services. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its YOUTUBE trade mark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name and that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainant’s contentions but did send the Center an email on August 6, 2012 reading:
“Dear Sir,
I don't use this email address, today I received an email regarding at […]@, and then I opened this email and saw all your emails. Please I am a poor man, I'll give all domains to google but please in response give me some benefits so I could start my business buying new domains.
Regards,
Tanveer Sultan
[…]@
[+…]” 6. Discussion and Findings A. General
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely that:
(i) The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) The Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Moreover, while it is clear from the terms of the Respondent’s email reproduced at section 5B above that the Respondent has no intention of contesting this proceeding, it is nonetheless incumbent upon the Panel to be satisfied that all the above elements have been proved, if the Complaint is to succeed. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name comprises the Complainant’s trade mark, YOUTUBE, the word “urdu” and the generic “.com” domain suffix. The “.com” suffix may be ignored when assessing identity and confusing similarity for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
The Panel is satisfied that Internet users are likely to regard the Domain Name as one associated with an Urdu language version of the Complainant’s YouTube service.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant contends that the Respondent selected the Domain Name with knowledge of the Complainant’s trade mark and with the intention of deriving commercial gain by way of the advertising links on the Respondent’s website.
The Complainant has produced ample evidence to demonstrate that its YouTube website had achieved widespread acclaim by the date upon which the Domain Name was registered, namely December 6, 2008. As noted in section 4 above In November 2006, Time Magazine heralded YouTube as Time’s Invention of the Year in 2006.
The Panel finds it inconceivable that anyone well-versed in Internet commerce, as the Respondent clearly has been at all material times, could not have been well-aware of the Complainant’s YouTube website by December 2008.
The Complainant has made out what the Panel regards as a strong prima facie case, a case calling for an answer.
The Respondent has elected not to offer an answer. He has simply stated in the email quoted above that he’ll “give all domains to Google.” Moreover, the Panel can conceive of no credible answer to the Complainant’s contention.
In these circumstances the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
On the same basis the Panel is satisfied on the evidence before him that the Respondent registered the Domain Name with the intention of using it as he has been using it, namely to connect to a website featuring links to sites many of which are sites of the type one would expect to find on the Complainant’s website and others of which are commercial sites offering a variety of goods and services ranging from face creams to dating services.
The webpage from the Respondent’s website exhibited to the Complaint features a strap line reading “Youtube Urdu Hindi Movies Video Songs Funny Clips Watch Online”, which reinforces the Panel in his view that the Respondent’s intention has been to ride on the back of the goodwill associated with the Complainant’s well-known trade mark.
The Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraphs 4(a)(iii) and 4(b)(iv). 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.
Tony Willoughby
Sole Panelist
Dated: August 6, 2012
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy