Google Wins Cybersquatting Dispute - The Second and Third Points
(Page 4 of 4 )
The second point, that Gridasov had no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names, was only a little bit harder to prove. First of all, Google's mere assertion that Gridasov had no rights or legitimate interests in the names shifted the burden of proof onto Gridasov, who had not responded to the complaint. The panel could (and, indeed, did) determine from that alone that Gridasov had no rights or legitimate interests in the names. Google went further, though, saying that Gridasov is not commonly known by those names. Google also pointed out the malware and unrelated products issues. The panel makes an important finding that anticipates the third prong of the decision. "The Panel finds the use of domain names that are confusingly similar to Complainant's mark to attract Internet users to a website that may annoy or harm the users in some way, and that appears to serve no legitimate function, is harmful to Complainant as the users may assume that Complainant has some affiliation with the harmful content."
Finally, the panel touches on the third thing that must be proved for Google to be granted relief: that Gridasov registered and used the domains in bad faith. Reiterating the malware and product offerings, Dorf went further to state that "The Panel assumes that Respondent earns compensation through its website from third parties by redirecting Internet users via links on Respondent's websites. Thus, the Panel determines that Respondent's use of the disputed domain names to benefit through a likelihood of confusion is evidence of bad faith registration..." Dorf adds that "Under the Policy, typosquatting is itself evidence of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name and the Panel finds no reason to distinguish Respondent's use of the practice in this instance."
Paul Dorf neatly concludes that all three elements required under the ICANN policy have been met, and granted that ownership of all four of Gridasov's disputed domain names should be transferred to Google. Dorf was chosen as the sole panel member for the case on June 16; the three weeks it took to resolve the case, although unusually fast by some standards, seems about right for something that was apparently this straightforward. One can only hope that the dispute resolution system continues to be this fair and efficient, for all disputants involved.
| DISCLAIMER: The content provided in this article is not warranted or guaranteed by Developer Shed, Inc. The content provided is intended for entertainment and/or educational purposes in order to introduce to the reader key ideas, concepts, and/or product reviews. As such it is incumbent upon the reader to employ real-world tactics for security and implementation of best practices. We are not liable for any negative consequences that may result from implementing any information covered in our articles or tutorials. If this is a hardware review, it is not recommended to open and/or modify your hardware. |
/ 8 
