Androidfordevelopers.com + 30 more domains

The timeline behind androidfordevelopers.com

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

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

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. RHamos Humanos / RHamos Solucoes em Recursos Humanos / Jairo Ramos da Silva / Jairo Ramos Jairo Claim Number: FA2602002205345 PARTIES Complainant is Google LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Griffin Barnett of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is RHamos Humanos / RHamos Solucoes em Recursos Humanos / Jairo Ramos da Silva / Jairo Ramos Jairo ("Respondent"), Brazil. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <androidfordevelopers.com>, <androidswitch.com>, <carteiradogoogle.com>, <contasdogoogle.com>, <gfiberinternet.com>, <googleadvocacia.com>, <googlecambio.com>, <googleconta.com>, <googlecontabil.com>, <googledolar.com>, <googlefinancas.com>, <googlefordevelopers.com>, <googlemapsgo.com>, <googlemerchandising.com>, <googlenuvem.com>, <googleouro.com>, <googlepartnerplex.com>, <googlepixelbrasil.com>, <googlepixelcoin.com>, <googlepixeltv.com>, <googlepixelwatch.com>, <googleplayinternet.com>, <googleplayjogos.com>, <googleplaylivros.com>, <googleplexbank.com>, <googleplexcoin.com>, <googlesatelite.com>, <googlesystem.com>, <googlethekeyword.com>, <localizadordogoogle.com> and <mudarparaandroid.com> (the "Domain Names"), registered with eNom, LLC and One.com A/S. 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. Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 13, 2026. Forum received payment on February 13, 2026. On February 16 and 17, 2026, eNom, LLC and One.com A/S. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the Domain Names are registered with eNom, LLC and One.com A/S and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. eNom, LLC and One.com A/S have verified that Respondent is bound by the eNom, LLC and One.com A/S registration agreements and have thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"). On February 18, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Portuguese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 10, 2026 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registrations as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@androidfordevelopers.com, postmaster@androidswitch.com, postmaster@carteiradogoogle.com, postmaster@contasdogoogle.com, postmaster@gfiberinternet.com, postmaster@googleadvocacia.com, postmaster@googlecambio.com, postmaster@googleconta.com, postmaster@googlecontabil.com, postmaster@googledolar.com, postmaster@googlefinancas.com, postmaster@googlefordevelopers.com, postmaster@googlemapsgo.com, postmaster@googlemerchandising.com, postmaster@googlenuvem.com, postmaster@googleouro.com, postmaster@googlepartnerplex.com, postmaster@googlepixelbrasil.com, postmaster@googlepixelcoin.com, postmaster@googlepixeltv.com, postmaster@googlepixelwatch.com, postmaster@googleplayinternet.com, postmaster@googleplayjogos.com, postmaster@googleplaylivros.com, postmaster@googleplexbank.com, postmaster@googleplexcoin.com, postmaster@googlesatelite.com, postmaster@googlesystem.com, postmaster@googlethekeyword.com, postmaster@localizadordogoogle.com, postmaster@mudarparaandroid.com. Also on February 18, 2026, the Portuguese and English 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 registrations as technical, administrative and billing contacts. Having received no formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default in Portuguese and English. On March 11, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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 Names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PRELIMINARY ISSUES: LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDING The One.com A/S registration agreement is in Portuguese and the eNom, LLC registration agreement is in English. Pursuant to Rule 11(a), the language of the proceeding in relation to the <localizadordogoogle.com> domain name shall be Portuguese and the language of the proceeding in relation to the other 30 domain names shall be English unless otherwise determined by the Panel, having regard to the circumstances of the proceeding. Complainant requests that the proceeding be conducted in English because the use of English words in most of the Domain Names (e.g., "Merchandising" and "System"); the use of the English language in Respondent's email correspondence associated with the Domain Names; and the fact that the Domain Names and associated websites target Complainant, an American company, demonstrate that Respondent is able to understand and communicate in English. In the absence of any formal Response, these circumstances satisfy the Panel that Respondent is likely to be proficient in English and that there would be no undue prejudice to Respondent if English were the language of the proceeding. MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules provides that a "complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder". Paragraph 1(d) of Forum's Supplemental Rules defines "The Holder of a domain name Registration" as "the single person or entity listed in the registration information, as verified by the Registrar, at the time of commencement" and sub-paragraph 1(d)(i) provides that a Complainant wishing to make an argument for a single Respondent having multiple aliases must comply with Supplemental Rules 4(c) and 17(a)(i). Complainant has shown that the Domain Names are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Hence this decision refers to RHamos Humanos / RHamos Solucoes em Recursos Humanos / Jairo Ramos da Silva / Jairo Ramos Jairo as "Respondent". PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant's GOOGLE name and company were created in 1998 by Stanford Ph.D. candidates Larry Page and Sergey Brin. Since that time, the Google search engine has become one of the most highly recognized Internet search services in the world. Complainant's primary website is located at "www.google.com", and Complainant owns and operates hundreds of additional GOOGLE-formative domain names, including nearly every top-level country code domain consisting solely of the famous GOOGLE mark. Complainant also owns registrations around the world for the marks GOOGLE MAPS, GOOGLE PIXEL, GOOGLE PIXEL WATCH, PIXEL, PIXEL WATCH, GOOGLE PLAY, GOOGLE WALLET, ANDROID and GFIBER. The Domain Names are all confusingly similar to one or more of Complainant's marks. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Names. Whois records do not suggest that Respondent is known as any of Complainant's trademarks. Respondent's actions are not a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is Respondent engaged in a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Names. To the contrary, the Domain Names are being used in connection with a fraudulent scheme where Respondent falsely claims to be the "Executive Director" of Google Wallet and Google Pixel in order to try and induce victims to engage in business activities with Respondent or otherwise provide sensitive personal or financial information and/or monies. Respondent registered and has used the Domain Names in bad faith. The fame and distinctive qualities of Complainant's trademarks render it wholly implausible that Respondent independently and innocently registered the Domain Names. Respondent's registration and use of domain names that fully incorporate Complainant's famous and well-known marks in connection with a fraudulent scheme whereby Respondent attempts to pass himself and his services off as being provided by or associated with Complainant, and through which Respondent solicits money and other sensitive financial and personal information, demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use of the Domain Names. Respondent's bad faith use of the Domain Names is further demonstrated by the fact that Respondent registered at least 30 domain names that infringe Complainant's trademarks. Respondent's use of a proxy service to hide its actual registration information and Respondent's failure to respond to Complainant's cease and desist letter and follow-up communications is further evidence of Respondent's bad faith registration and use of the Domain Names. In response to Respondent's correspondence noted below, Complainant stated: "Google is not an investor and has not authorized the Respondent's use of Google's trademarks. Any claims to the contrary by Respondent are false." B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding. Correspondence was received by Forum on February 18, 2026, stating (in translation): "Attached is my Income Tax Return with information about Google LLC as one of my investors." FINDINGS Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief. 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 formal 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 3.1 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 shown that it has rights in numerous service and trademarks, including: GOOGLE, registered on February 12, 2019 with the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office, Reg. No. 914169831, for inter alia financial transaction services in International Class 36; GOOGLE PIXEL, registered on January 22, 2019 with the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office, Reg. No. 913921033, for inter alia computer software, in International Class 9; PIXEL WATCH, registered on June 13, 2023 with the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office, Reg. No. 926399586, for inter alia smartwatches, in International Class 9; GOOGLE PLAY, registered on March 19, 2019 with the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office, Reg. No. 914492705, for inter alia Computer software for transmission and display of digital content, audio works, visual works, audiovisual works, electronic publications, books, movies, and music, in International Class 9; GOOGLE WALLET, registered on February 20, 2024 with the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office, Reg. No. 928371336, for inter alia Computer software for financial transaction services, namely, providing secure commercial transactions and payment options, in International Class 36; ANDROID, registered on February 20, 2024 with the Commonwealth of Australia Trade Marks Office, Reg. No. 1456667, for inter alia clothing, in International Class 25; and GFIBER, registered on December 16, 2022 with the United Kingdom Trade Marks Registry, Reg. No. UK00003835694, for inter alia optical network terminals, in International Class 9. It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 1.7. The Panel finds each of Respondent's Domain Names to be confusingly similar to one or more of Complainant's ANDROID, GOOGLE, GFIBER, GOOGLE PIXEL, GOOGLE PLAY and PIXEL WATCH marks, only differing by the addition to one or other of the marks of descriptive words including "for developers", "switch", "cartiera do", "contas do", "internet", "advocacia", "cambio", "conta", "contabil", "dolar", "financas", "maps go", "merchandising", "nuvem", "ouro", "partner plex", "brasil", "coin", "tv", "jogos", "livros", "plex bank", "satelite", "system", "the keyword", "localiza dordo", and "mudar para", none of which differences are sufficient to distinguish any of the Domain Names from Complainant's marks. The inconsequential ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") may be ignored under this element. See Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000). Complainant has established this element. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate Respondent's rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii): (i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. The Domain Names were registered between March 29, 2025 and January 30, 2026, several years after the registration of Complainant's marks. Complainant has shown that, while claiming to be the "Executive Director" of Google Wallet and Google Pixel, Respondent is using the Domain Names to resolve to websites prominently displaying one or more of Complainant's marks and purporting to be genuine websites of Complainant, and to send emails requesting personal and financial information and money from prospective customers of Complainant. These circumstances, together with Complainant's assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA 1849706 (Forum July 17, 2019). Respondent has made no attempt to do so. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names. Complainant has established this element. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is expressed in the conjunctive: "the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith" and Paragraph 4(b) sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii), including: (iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location. The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant, its ANDROID, GOOGLE, GFIBER, GOOGLE PIXEL, GOOGLE PLAY and PIXEL WATCH marks when Respondent registered the Domain Names and that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's websites, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's websites. This demonstrates registration and use in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Further, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Names in bad faith to profit from and exploit the goodwill associated with Complainant's marks through a fraudulent email scheme. Complainant has established this element. DECISION Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <androidfordevelopers.com>, <androidswitch.com>, <carteiradogoogle.com>, <contasdogoogle.com>, <gfiberinternet.com>, <googleadvocacia.com>, <googlecambio.com>, <googleconta.com>, <googlecontabil.com>, <googledolar.com>, <googlefinancas.com>, <googlefordevelopers.com>, <googlemapsgo.com>, <googlemerchandising.com>, <googlenuvem.com>, <googleouro.com>, <googlepartnerplex.com>, <googlepixelbrasil.com>, <googlepixelcoin.com>, <googlepixeltv.com>, <googlepixelwatch.com>, <googleplayinternet.com>, <googleplayjogos.com>, <googleplaylivros.com>, <googleplexbank.com>, <googleplexcoin.com>, <googlesatelite.com>, <googlesystem.com>, <googlethekeyword.com>, <localizadordogoogle.com> and <mudarparaandroid.com> Domain Names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Alan L. Limbury, Panelist Dated: March 13, 2026 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.