Geeksquadwebroot.com

The timeline behind geeksquadwebroot.com

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 BBY Solutions, Inc. v. Rahul Raj Claim Number: FA2201001980423 PARTIES Complainant is BBY Solutions, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Giulio E. Yaquinto of Pirkey Barber PLLC, Texas, USA. Respondent is Rahul Raj (“Respondent”), India. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <geeksquadwebroot.com>, registered with NameSilo, 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. Richard Hill as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on January 14, 2022; the Forum received payment on January 14, 2022. On January 14, 2022, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <geeksquadwebroot.com> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, 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 January 17, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 7, 2022 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@geeksquadwebroot.com. Also on January 17, 2022, 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. Respondent did however send emails to the Forum, see below. On February 10, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill 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. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: IDENTITY THEFT Respondent contends that it has been the victim of identity theft, see below. As the Forum had not received any further response from the named Respondent it proceeded with the Panel appointment. The Panel has taken the following rules and precedent into account in making a determination on not redacting Respondent’s identity. According to Policy ¶ 4(j), “[a]ll decisions under this Policy will be published in full over the Internet, except when an Administrative Panel determines in an exceptional case to redact portions of its decision.” In Wells Fargo & Co. v. John Doe as Holder of Domain Name <wellzfargo.com>, FA 362108 (Forum Dec. 30, 2004) and Wells Fargo & Co. v. John Doe as Holder of Domain Name <wellsfargossl>, FA 453727 (Forum May 19, 2005), the panels omitted the respondents’ personal information from the decisions, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(j), in an attempt to protect the respondents who claimed to be victims of identity theft from becoming aligned with acts the actual registrants appeared to have sought to impute to the respondents.). However, according to Forum Supplemental Rule 15(b), “All requests pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(j) and Rule 16(b) to have a portion of the decision redacted, must be made in the Complaint, the Response, or an Additional Submission that is submitted before the Panel’s decision is published.” (emphasis added). Rule 1 defines “respondent” as “the holder of a domain-name registration against which a complaint is initiated;” and Forum Supplemental Rule 1(d) further defines “the holder of a domain-name registration” as “the single person or entity listed in the WHOIS registration information at the time of commencement.” The Panel notes precedent which holds the registrar-confirmed registrant of a disputed domain (per the WHOIS at commencement of the proceeding) the proper respondent, notwithstanding the possibility that said respondent’s identity was stolen. See, e.g., Banco Bradesco S/A v. Gisele Moura Leite, D2014-0414 (WIPO Apr. 30, 2014). In the instant case, there has been no request in the Complaint to redact any portion of the decision, nor has there been a Response or an Additional Submission. Consequently, the Panel finds that it is not warranted to redact Respondent’s name and location from the Panel’s decision, PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant states that it engages in the business of computer installation, maintenance, repair and design services and other technical support services. Complainant has rights in the GEEK SQUAD mark through its registration of the mark in the United States in 2003. Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its GEEK SQUAD mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds the third-party trademark WEBROOT along with the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position. According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor did Complainant authorize Respondent to use the GEEK SQUAD mark in any way. Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to offer services that compete with Complainant’s business. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position. Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith as Respondent uses the disputed domain name to offer services that compete with Complainant’s business. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the GEEK SQUAD mark due to the fame and use of the mark in commerce. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. In its emails to the Forum Respondent states, in pertinent part: “Someone used my details to create this website. … Please get this website deleted. Someone has used my details. I shouldn't have replied to that lottery mail with my information, i thought sharing name won't do anything. Can you please get this website removed? I will be really thankful to you. I am really scared who is using my personal information. I shouldn't have replied to the email in the past. What have i done. Why i shared my personal information online. Please get it removed, please.” FINDINGS For the reasons set forth below, the Panel will not make any findings of fact. DISCUSSION 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. 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." The Panel interprets Respondent’s email as consent to transfer the disputed domain name. Thus, in the present case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant. In accordance with a general legal principle governing arbitrations as well as national court proceedings, this Panel holds that it cannot act nec ultra petita nec infra petita, that is, that it cannot issue a decision that would be either less than requested, nor more than requested by the parties. Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy. See Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Forum Jan. 13, 2004); see also Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Forum June 24, 2005) (“[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.”). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy. Rights or Legitimate Interests For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy. Registration and Use in Bad Faith For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy. DECISION Given the common request of the Parties, it is Ordered that the <geeksquadwebroot.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Richard Hill, Panelist Dated: February 10, 2022 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.