Google Can't Be Misspelled - Typosquatter's Domain Names Must Be Transferred
Case Name: Google Inc. v. Sergey Gridasov, Nat.Arb.Forum Claim No. 474816 (July 5, 2005).
The One Sentence Summary: Complainant Google prevailed in this administrative proceeding by showing that the Respondent's domain names googkle.com, ghoogle.com, gfoogle.com and gooigle.com were confusingly similar to its registered GOOGLE mark; that Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names and; that it had registered and used the names in bad faith.
National Arbitration Forum Panel Decision: This proceeding was decided in the absence of any appearance or submission by the Respondent. The panel elected to render its decision from the undisputed representations of Google and "appropriate" inferences drawn from them. The panel then addressed the three elements necessary to obtain an order of cancellation or transfer under the ICANN policy.
First, the panel found that googkle.com, ghoogle.com, ghoogle.com, gfoogle.com and gooigle.com were confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark in that they differed from the GOOGLE mark simply by the addition of one letter. Under Policy, the addition of one letter to a mark has not been found to create a distinct domain name.
Second, the panel found that "Respondent’s use of misspelled versions of Complainant’s mark to attract Internet users interested in Complainant’s services to Respondent’s website does not constitute a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."
Finally, the court found that Respondent's registration and use of the disputed domain names to expose users to malicious software constituted evidence of bad faith registration and use. Having found that it had established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel granted Google relief in the form of an order that the disputed domain names must be transferred to it by Respondent.
The One Sentence Summary: Complainant Google prevailed in this administrative proceeding by showing that the Respondent's domain names googkle.com, ghoogle.com, gfoogle.com and gooigle.com were confusingly similar to its registered GOOGLE mark; that Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names and; that it had registered and used the names in bad faith.
National Arbitration Forum Panel Decision: This proceeding was decided in the absence of any appearance or submission by the Respondent. The panel elected to render its decision from the undisputed representations of Google and "appropriate" inferences drawn from them. The panel then addressed the three elements necessary to obtain an order of cancellation or transfer under the ICANN policy.
First, the panel found that googkle.com, ghoogle.com, ghoogle.com, gfoogle.com and gooigle.com were confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark in that they differed from the GOOGLE mark simply by the addition of one letter. Under Policy, the addition of one letter to a mark has not been found to create a distinct domain name.
Second, the panel found that "Respondent’s use of misspelled versions of Complainant’s mark to attract Internet users interested in Complainant’s services to Respondent’s website does not constitute a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."
Finally, the court found that Respondent's registration and use of the disputed domain names to expose users to malicious software constituted evidence of bad faith registration and use. Having found that it had established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel granted Google relief in the form of an order that the disputed domain names must be transferred to it by Respondent.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home