Googlework.space

The timeline behind googlework.space

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

DECISION Google LLC v. Jessica aukema Claim Number: FA2012001923633 PARTIES Complainant is Google LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Fabricio Vayra of Perkins Coie LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Jessica aukema (“Respondent”), Netherlands. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <googlework.space>, registered with Key-Systems, LLC. 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. Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on December 2, 2020; the Forum received payment on December 2, 2020. On December 3, 2020, Key-Systems, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <googlework.space> domain name is registered with Key-Systems, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Key-Systems, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Key-Systems, LLC 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 December 9, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 29, 2020 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@googlework.space. Also on December 9, 2020, 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 January 4, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Bruce E. Meyerson 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. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant 1. Complainant owns and operates a leading internet search service. Complainant has rights in the GOOGLE mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 2,884,502 registered Sep.14, 2004). 2. Respondent’s <googlework.space>[i] domain name is identical or confusingly because it wholly incorporates Complainant’s GOOGLE mark and merely adds the term “work” and the “.space” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) 3. Respondent has no legitimate interests in the <googlework.space> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent any rights in the GOOGLE mark. 4. Additionally, Respondent does not use the domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the domain name resolves to a parked page. 5. Further, Respondent generally offers the disputed domain name for sale 6. Respondent registered and uses the <googlework.space> domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered the domain name with intent to sell. 7. Additionally, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the GOOGLE mark. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant holds trademark rights for the GOOGLE mark. Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s GOOGLE mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the use of the <googlework.space> domain name and that Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith. 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." 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”). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant has rights in the GOOGLE mark based upon the registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,884,502 registered Sep.14, 2004). Registration of a mark with the USPTO establishes rights in a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Thus, the Panel holds that the Complainant has rights in the mark under Policy 4(a)(i). Complainant argues Respondent’s <googlework.space> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s GOOGLE mark as it contains the GOOGLE mark in its entirety and merely adds the term “work” and the “.space” gTLD. The addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and gTLD fails to sufficiently distinguish a domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant’s entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy). Therefore, the <googlework.space> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the <googlework.space> domain name. This allegation must be supported with a prima facie showing by Complainant under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). After a complainant successfully makes a prima facie case, a respondent is faced with the burden of proving it does have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. In Swedish Match UK Ltd. v. Admin, Domain, FA 873137 (Forum Feb. 13, 2007), the panel held that when a complainant produces a prima facie case, the burden of proof then shifts to the respondent to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c); see also Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14, 2001) (“For the purposes of this sub paragraph, however, it is sufficient for the Complainant to show a prima facie case and the burden of proof is then shifted on to the shoulders of Respondent. In those circumstances, the common approach is for respondents to seek to bring themselves within one of the examples of paragraph 4(c) or put forward some other reason why they can fairly be said to have a relevant right or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in question.”). The Panel holds that Complainant has made a prima facie case. Complainant contends Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <googlework.space> domain name since Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the GOOGLE mark. WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by a domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant’s mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by a domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”). The WHOIS information for the <googlework.space> domain name lists the registrant as “Jessica Aukema,” and there is no other evidence to suggest that Respondent was authorized to use the GOOGLE mark. Therefore, the Panel holds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <googlework.space> domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant argues that Respondent fails to use the <googlework.space> domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as the domain name instead resolves to a parked page. Where a respondent inactively holds a domain name incorporating the mark of another, the respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Morgan Stanley v. Francis Mccarthy / Baltec Marine Llc, FA 1785347 (Forum June 8, 2018) (“Inactive holding of a domain name does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). Complainant has provided a screenshot of Respondent’s <googlework.space> domain name’s resolving webpage that resolves to a parked page with no substantive content. Therefore, the Panel holds that Respondent fails to actively use the <googlework.space> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant argues that Respondent registered the <googlework.space> domain name with intent to sell the domain name for more than its out-of-pocket costs. An offer to sell a domain name incorporating the mark of another for more than its out of-pocket-costs is evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ (b)(i). See Retail Royalty Company and AE Direct Co LLC v. Whois Foundation / DOMAIN MAY BE FOR SALE, CHECK AFTERNIC.COM Domain Admin, FA 1821246 (Forum Jan. 13, 2019) (“Respondent lists the disputed domain name for sale for $5,759, which is a price well in excess of out of pocket costs. Such an offering can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).”). Complainant provided the following evidence: Further, while Respondent initially expressed interest in hearing Complainant’s offer to purchase the Domain Name, Respondent quickly rejected Complainant’s $2,500 USD offer, stating that it was too low and that it had already rejected a fourfold offer (~$10,000 USD) from another party. In particular, Respondent claims that the Domain Name has a high “potential” offer value. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the <googlework.space> domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). Finally, Complainant argues that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the GOOGLE mark at the time of registering the <googlework.space> domain name. The Panel finds that Respondent did have actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark when Respondent registered the domain name, demonstrating bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). iFinex Inc. v. xu shuaiwei, FA 1760249 (Forum Jan. 1, 2018) (“Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s BITFINEX trademark as well as from Respondent’s use of its trademark laden domain name to direct internet traffic to a website which is a direct competitor of Complainant”). To support this assertion, Complainant points to its trademark registrations as well as its commercial presence and reputation. Complainant also provides evidence of actual knowledge based on correspondence with the Respondent. Therefore, the Panel agrees that Respondent did have actual knowledge of Complainant’s right in its mark, which would support a finding of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). DECISION Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <googlework.space> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist Dated: January 8, 2021 [i] The <googlework.space> domain name was registered on Sept. 17, 2020. Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

Source of record: FORUM . Reproduced for research; FORUM is the authoritative source.