Googlebardlogin.net

The timeline behind googlebardlogin.net

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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Google LLC v. Yusuf Cayci Claim Number: FA2407002109159 PARTIES Complainant is Google LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Fabricio Vayra of Perkins Coie LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Yusuf Cayci ("Respondent"), Türkiye. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <googlebardlogin.net>, registered with Automattic Inc.. 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. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 31, 2024; Forum received payment on July 31, 2024. On August 1, 2024, Automattic Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <googlebardlogin.net> domain name is registered with Automattic Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Automattic Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Automattic Inc. 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 August 5, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 26, 2024 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@googlebardlogin.net. Also on August 5, 2024, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On August 27, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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 i) Complainant, Google LLC is in the search engine business. Complainant has rights in the GOOGLE mark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g., Reg. No. 2,806,075, registered January 20, 2004). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's GOOGLE and/or BARD marks because it incorporates the marks in its entirety and adds the descriptive term "login" and the gTLD ".net". ii) Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's GOOGLE and BARD marks and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The disputed domain name is being used to divert traffic from Complainant's BARD AI services to Respondent's own website offering competing AI services. iii) Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent's willful intent to violate Complainant's intellectual property rights is exhibited by Respondent's registration and use of the domain name that fully incorporates the GOOGLE and BARD marks being used in connection with a website intended to mimic an official BARD AI site or otherwise leverage consumer confusion to draw Internet traffic to Respondent's site for commercial gain. Where a domain name is "so obviously connected with such a well-known name and products," the very use of the domain name "by someone with no connection with the products suggests opportunistic bad faith." Respondent's use of a proxy service to hide its actual registration information is further evidence of bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS 1. The disputed domain name was registered on July 25, 2023. 2. Complainant has established rights in the GOOGLE mark based upon registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,806,075, registered January 20, 2004). 3. Complainant filed the trademark application for the BARD mark with the USPTO (e.g., Serial No. 97,780,614, filed February 3, 2023; published February 27, 2024). 4. On February 6, 2023, Complainant announced the launch of its conversational artificial intelligence ("AI") service under the name and trademark BARD. There has been extensive unsolicited media coverage relating to the launch of BARD. 5. Complainant has established common law rights in the BARD mark with priority rights of February 3, 2023. 6. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that that intentionally creates the impression that the website is operated by or is affiliated with, sponsored or endorsed by, or otherwise authorized by Complainant in relation to its BARD offering, and which is promoting directly competing offerings and directing to other websites controlled by Respondent that are being monetized through the use of embedded and/or banner advertising. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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 asserts rights in the GOOGLE mark based upon registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 2,806,075, registered January 20, 2004) and other trademark agencies. Registration of a mark with multiple trademark agencies is a valid showing of rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Since Complainant has provided evidence of registration of the GOOGLE mark with the USPTO, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the Google mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). On February 6, 2023, Complainant announced the launch of its conversational artificial intelligence ("AI") service under the name and trademark BARD. There has been extensive unsolicited media coverage relating to the launch of BARD. Complainant filed the trademark application for the BARD mark with the USPTO (e.g., Serial No. 97,780,614, filed February 3, 2023; published February 27, 2024). The Panel finds that Complainant has established common law rights in the BARD mark with priority rights of February 3, 2023 under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant argues that the disputed domain name <googlebardlogin.net> is confusingly similar to Complainant's GOOGLE and BARD mark because it incorporates the marks in its entirety and adds the descriptive term "login" and the gTLD ".net." Adding or removing descriptive terms or a gTLD is insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from a complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. George Whitehead, FA 1784412 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("[S]light differences between domain names and registered marks, such as the addition of words that describe the goods or services in connection with the mark and gTLDs, do not distinguish the domain name from the mark incorporated therein per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). Therefore, the Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's GOOGLE and/or BARD marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Section 2.1, WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 ("Where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element."). Complainant asserts Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its GOOGLE and/or BARD marks in the disputed domain name. Under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), where a response is lacking, relevant WHOIS information may demonstrate that a Respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name. The unmasked WHOIS information identifies Respondent as "Yusuf Cayci." There is nothing in the records to suggest that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Panel thus finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Next, Complainant contends Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The disputed domain name is being used to divert traffic from Complainant's BARD AI service website to Respondent's own website offering competing AI services. A respondent's use of a confusingly similar domain name to offer services which compete with the complainant's business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) ("Respondent's use of <edcorlando.xyz> also does not qualify as a bona fide offering… the <edcorlando.xyz> domain name resolves to a site containing pay-per-click hyperlinks and advertisements… Since these kinds of advertisements generate revenue for the holder of a domain name, they cannot be noncommercial; further, they do not qualify as a bona fide offering."). Complainant provides screenshots of its website and the disputed domain name's resolving webpage, showing similar AI services. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the considerations above. All of these matters go to make out the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant contends that Respondent's willful intent to violate Complainant's intellectual property rights is exhibited by Respondent's registration and use of a domain name that fully incorporates the GOOGLE and BARD marks being used in connection with a website intended to mimic an official BARD AI service or otherwise leverage consumer confusion to draw Internet traffic to Respondent's site for commercial gain. The Panel observes that use of a disputed domain name to pass off as a complainant and offer competing or counterfeit versions of its products may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv) where the respondent used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website upon which the respondent passes off as the complainant and offers online cryptocurrency services in direct competition with the complainant's business), see also Guess? IP Holder L.P. and Guess?, Inc. v. LI FANGLIN, FA 1610067 (Forum Apr. 25, 2015) (finding respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) because the respondent used the resolving website to sell the complainant's products, using images copied directly from the complainant's website), see also Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where "Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant's own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant."). Complainant has provided screenshots of the disputed domain names' resolving webpage, which mimics Complainant's BARD AI service website. The Panel notes that the disputed domain name's resolving website imitates a genuine website of Complainant, and promotes directly competing offerings and directs to other websites controlled by Respondent that are being monetized through the use of embedded and/or banner advertising for Respondent's own commercial gain. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) or (iv). 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 <googlebardlogin.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist Dated: August 28, 2024 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.