Google Wins Cybersquatting Dispute - Points to Prove: the First Point
(Page 3 of 4 )
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has a Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy that serves as an alternative to trademark lawsuits. It is handled by the National Arbitration Forum, which hears thousands of domain name disputes every year. One can only assume that this huge volume of cases has led to a certain degree of efficiency. The Google decision runs to only seven pages, each one building appropriately on the one before and citing all the right precedents. One could wish that more legally-binding documents were as simple.
When Gridasov signed up for his domain names with Joker.com, he agreed to resolve domain name disputes through ICANN's policy mentioned above. Within a week of receiving Google's complaint, the NAF notified Gridasov via email, postal mail, and fax, "to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts..." and gave him until June 8 to respond. When he didn't respond, the NAF used the same methods to let him know that the case would proceed without his response.
Google made three assertions, which practically go by the textbook as to what a complainant needs to assert and prove in order to obtain relief. They were:
- That the four domain names were confusingly similar to Google's.
- That Gridasov did not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain names.
- That Gridasov registered and used the domain names in bad faith.
The search engine giant's desired relief was to have the domain names transferred to itself.
The first part of the findings proved Google's rights the Google name. Google filed its registration for its name with the United States Patent and Trademark Office in mid-September of 1999, preceding Gridasov's earliest registration of his domain names by a little more than three months. Although Google did not receive a registration for its name from the USPTO until January 2004, to quote the decision, "once Complainant's mark has been registered, Complainant's rights in the mark date back to the date the mark was originally filed with the USPTO."
The four domain names differ from Google's by only one letter. Panelist Paul Dorf notes that "Under the Policy, panels have widely held that the addition of one letter to a mark does not create a distinct domain name." This establishes the first point, that the domain names are confusingly similar to Google's.
Next: The Second and Third Points >>
More Search Engine News Articles
More By Terri Wells
/ 8 
