À propos de la propriété intellectuelle Formation en propriété intellectuelle Sensibilisation à la propriété intellectuelle La propriété intellectuelle pour… Propriété intellectuelle et… Propriété intellectuelle et… Information relative aux brevets et à la technologie Information en matière de marques Information en matière de dessins et modèles industriels Information en matière d’indications géographiques Information en matière de protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Lois, traités et jugements dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Ressources relatives à la propriété intellectuelle Rapports sur la propriété intellectuelle Protection des brevets Protection des marques Protection des dessins et modèles industriels Protection des indications géographiques Protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Règlement extrajudiciaire des litiges Solutions opérationnelles à l’intention des offices de propriété intellectuelle Paiement de services de propriété intellectuelle Décisions et négociations Coopération en matière de développement Appui à l’innovation Partenariats public-privé L’Organisation Travailler avec nous Responsabilité Brevets Marques Dessins et modèles industriels Indications géographiques Droit d’auteur Secrets d’affaires Académie de l’OMPI Ateliers et séminaires Journée mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle Magazine de l’OMPI Sensibilisation Études de cas et exemples de réussite Actualités dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Prix de l’OMPI Entreprises Universités Peuples autochtones Instances judiciaires Ressources génétiques, savoirs traditionnels et expressions culturelles traditionnelles Économie Égalité des genres Santé mondiale Changement climatique Politique en matière de concurrence Objectifs de développement durable Application Technologies de pointe Applications mobiles Sport Tourisme PATENTSCOPE Analyse de brevets Classification internationale des brevets Programme ARDI – Recherche pour l’innovation Programme ASPI – Information spécialisée en matière de brevets Base de données mondiale sur les marques Madrid Monitor Base de données Article 6ter Express Classification de Nice Classification de Vienne Base de données mondiale sur les dessins et modèles Bulletin des dessins et modèles internationaux Base de données Hague Express Classification de Locarno Base de données Lisbon Express Base de données mondiale sur les marques relative aux indications géographiques Base de données PLUTO sur les variétés végétales Base de données GENIE Traités administrés par l’OMPI WIPO Lex – lois, traités et jugements en matière de propriété intellectuelle Normes de l’OMPI Statistiques de propriété intellectuelle WIPO Pearl (Terminologie) Publications de l’OMPI Profils nationaux Centre de connaissances de l’OMPI Série de rapports de l’OMPI consacrés aux tendances technologiques Indice mondial de l’innovation Rapport sur la propriété intellectuelle dans le monde PCT – Le système international des brevets ePCT Budapest – Le système international de dépôt des micro-organismes Madrid – Le système international des marques eMadrid Article 6ter (armoiries, drapeaux, emblèmes nationaux) La Haye – Le système international des dessins et modèles industriels eHague Lisbonne – Le système d’enregistrement international des indications géographiques eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Médiation Arbitrage Procédure d’expertise Litiges relatifs aux noms de domaine Accès centralisé aux résultats de la recherche et de l’examen (WIPO CASE) Service d’accès numérique aux documents de priorité (DAS) WIPO Pay Compte courant auprès de l’OMPI Assemblées de l’OMPI Comités permanents Calendrier des réunions Documents officiels de l’OMPI Plan d’action de l’OMPI pour le développement Assistance technique Institutions de formation en matière de propriété intellectuelle Mesures d’appui concernant la COVID-19 Stratégies nationales de propriété intellectuelle Assistance en matière d’élaboration des politiques et de formulation de la législation Pôle de coopération Centres d’appui à la technologie et à l’innovation (CATI) Transfert de technologie Programme d’aide aux inventeurs WIPO GREEN Initiative PAT-INFORMED de l’OMPI Consortium pour des livres accessibles L’OMPI pour les créateurs WIPO ALERT États membres Observateurs Directeur général Activités par unité administrative Bureaux extérieurs Avis de vacance d’emploi Achats Résultats et budget Rapports financiers Audit et supervision

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Google Inc. v. Dkeystudlo Inc.

Case No. D2011-1353

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Google Inc., California, United States of America, represented by Ranjan Narula Associates, India.

The Respondent is Dkeystudlo Inc., Santiago, Chile.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <googlessl.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 9, 2011. On August 9, 2011, the Center transmitted by email to GoDaddy.com, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 10, 2011, GoDaddy.com, Inc. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on August 12, 2011 with a correction to the Registrar’s details.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 12, 2011. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was September 1, 2011. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 2, 2011.

The Center appointed Sir Ian Barker as the sole panelist in this matter on September 9, 2011. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a Delaware corporation founded in 1997, which operates the world’s largest search engine. Internet users worldwide can access the Complainant’s principal website from most desktop PCs and mobile and wireless platforms. They can also access a wide rang of information offered in many different languages.

The Complainant’s website receives some 581 million visitors a month. Its brand is ranked as one of the world’s most valuable. The Complainant offers a wide range of other products and services, including “Google Earth” which creates on-line maps of localities worldwide.

The Complainant owns numerous trademarks registered in many countries for the word “Google”, including a registration in Chile where the Respondent is situated. The Complainant’s brand has been widely promoted throughout the world since 1997. Its Google Network is estimated to reach more than 80% of worldwide Internet users. It has one of the largest advertising networks with an image index of some two billion items. It has partners, customers and advertisers worldwide. It owns a large number of domain name registrations in a large number of countries.

The Complainant has offices worldwide – including in Chile. It employs some 20,000 people and offers products and services in over 100 languages. Its revenue for 2010 was USD 29,321 million.

The disputed domain name was registered on June 24, 2009. It currently resolves to a website that imitates the Complainant’s website and incorporates the Complainant’s trademarked brand. The Complainant gave no permission to the Respondent to use its mark in any way.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark.

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant gave it none. None of the defences under Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy applies.

Given the fame of the Complainant’s mark, and its use and popularity all over the world, the disputed domain name must have been registered and is being used by the Respondent in bad faith.

The suffix “ssl” indicates “Secure Sockets Layer” which connotes a method of encrypting information on the Internet. This is likely to confuse Internet users that they are at a more secure site. The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name can only create confusion and lead Internet users to believe that the site has some connection with the Complainant.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Under Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to prevail, a complainant must prove the following elements of a claim for transfer or cancellation of a respondent’s domain name:

(i) that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;

(ii) that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and

(iii) that the respondent’s domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark. The disputed domain name fully incorporates the trademarked word GOOGLE. The suffix ‘ssl’ does not eliminate the confusingly similar aspect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant has satisfied the first limb of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant gave the Respondent no rights or legitimate interests to reflect its trademark in a domain name.

In the absence of any evidence which might suggest the application of one of the defences provided by Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

It defies belief that anyone using the Internet in Chile would not have heard of the Complainant and its famous mark in June 2009 when the disputed domain name was registered. The inference of bad faith registration is overwhelming.

Likewise, bad faith use. Google must be one of the best-known and most famous brands associated with the Internet. In this Panel’s view, the Respondent’s website is just a cheeky attempt to capitalize on the fame of the Complainant’s mark and to confuse Internet users into thinking that the Respondent’s site has some connection with the Complainant.

This is a clear case of cybersquatting with the Respondent using a world-renowned name in bad faith and in a blatant and rather unsubtle way. The third limb of Paragraph 4(a) has been satisfied.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name, <googlessl.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Sir Ian Barker
Sole Panelist
Dated: September 14, 2011

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/fr/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/fr/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/fr/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/fr/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/fr/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/fr/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/fr/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/fr/ https://www.wipo.int/news/fr/