ICANN Arbitration denies Google's claim

An ICANN-approved arbitration body decided the arbitration award against Google, denying its complaint involving the domain Oogle.com. According to the complaint filed by Google, the concerned domain is confusingly similar to its own. Therefore, as a remedy, it sought the same to be transferred to it.

Facts. 
A complaint was filed by Google with the National Arbitration Forum (NAF). NAF is body that resolves disagreements under its Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). It has been approved by Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to perform dispute resolution function.

Dispute Involved.

1. Google in its claim has alleged that Oogle.com is confusingly similar to its trademark as it merely the name Oogle merely lacks one letter from its name. Thus it appears to be intended to procure benefit from frequent user misspellings or typographical errors, according to the ruling issued by the arbitration forum. In other words, conduct by the owners of the domain name Oogle falls in the category of "typosquatting". 
2. Oogle.com's home page has historically mimicked the look and feel of Google's.
3. Oogle.com was registered in bad faith, as the Google trademark was registered in 1997, much before Oogle.com's registration (registered on Feb. 7 1999 by Christopher Neuman). Google being a well known name, it is unacceptable that Oogle.com was registered without independent knowledge of Google.

Pleadings by Defendant.

1. Oogle.com was registered on Feb. 7 1999 by Christopher Neuman, who was 13 years old at the time and has remained in his ownership since then. The name Oogle.com was chosen because Neuman came to know about another young software programmer named Justin Tunney, who used the online moniker "Oogle" or "Criminal Oogle". Noticing that Tunney had registered Oogle.net, and not Oogle.com,  Neuman proceeded to register the domain because he intended to collaborate on a website with Tunney.
2. The Oogle.com was served as a shopping site between 2000 and 2002 and programming-related website in 2002 and 2003, according to Neuman.
3. Accepting the contention of Plaintiff that Oogle.com offered sexual services and displayed pornographic and profane content, Neuman who said the domain was temporarily used in connection with "adult matchmaking services," which he considered as a lawful and permissible practice.
4. In 2010, during a few weeks where Oogle.com displayed a logo that resembled Google's, with a tag line saying: "Due to the economy the G has been laid off." "At the time we thought it was a funny and innocent usage, however upon reflection, I had it taken down after only a matter of weeks," Neuman said.
5. Replying the contention of the Google that the Defendant offered the domain name to Google for $600,000, Neuman told the arbitration forum that "there is nothing inherently wrongful in offering to sell a domain name for in excess of out of pocket expenses, when the domain name was registered in good faith to begin with."

Issues to be considered. 

According to ICANN policy rules, Google had to prove that:

1. the domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark or service to which it has rights; 
2. the Defendant has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; and 
3. the domain name had been registered and was being used in bad faith.

Award of the Forum.

1. While the panel found the explanation of the Defendant "extremely suspicious" for coming up with the name Oogle, it said it did not have the authority to ascertain whether the claims of the Defendant were credible.
2. Also the panel found no answer of the issue as to whether Google had the rights to the Google trademark as it apparently did not own any trademark registrations for the name when Oogle.com was registered. It added that the company had received little media attention at the time.

As all three elements required under the ICANN policy were not fulfilled, Google's claim was denied and the rights of the Defendant to keep the Oogle.com domain name was upheld by the arbitration forum.