A Complainant Complainant Google LLC operates the most widely used Internet search services in the world and uses the GOOGLE and GOOGLE HOME marks to provide and market its services Complainant claims rights in the GOOGLE and GOOGLE HOME marks

confusingly similar to DISNEY Google Inc v Domain Admin C/O ID 10760 / Privacy Protection Service INC d/b/a PrivacyProtect.org FA 1732138 Forum June 16 2017 finding google �spain.com confusingly similar to GOOGLE Michelin North America Inc v

Google LLC v Domain Support Claim Number FA1807001797377 PARTIES Complainant is Google LLC Complainant represented by Chantal Z Hwang of Cooley LLP District of Columbia USA Respondent is Domain Support Respondent International REGISTRAR AND

had carried even a basic Google search in respect of the wordings INTESA SANPAOLO the same would have yielded obvious references to the Complainant This raises a clear inference of knowledge of the Complainant s trademark on the part of the

impersonates Complainant See Google Inc v Ahmed Humood FA1411001591796 Forum Jan 7 2015 This Panel makes that inference Respondent has actual knowledge of Complainant s mark at the time of domain name registration based on the fame of Complainant

search engines such as Google when entering the designation �My Dirty Hobby � Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant �s MY DIRTY HOBBY trademark as it incorporates the latter in its entirety

� in the Google search engine �https //www.sanofipasteur.com/en/immunization-essentials/rabies/ � According to WIPO statistics the SANOFI trademark appeared as one of the most cyber-squatted trademarks in 2011 Given the lack of

Complainant has rights in the GOOGLE mark under Policy Paragraph 4 a i The next question that arises is whether the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant s GOOGLE mark Complainant argues that Respondent s

onscreen It is available on Google Android and iOS The application was first released in 2014 by Microblink a company based in Zagreb Croatia As of 2017 the Complainant has been operating as a separate company within the Microblink group of

on July 2 2014 A Google search for �Ivy Lane Living � also returns results in which Complainants � business is featured in every result on the first page Complainants � use of the IVY LANE LIVING mark pre-dates the registration of the

under the Policy see also Google Inc v Ahmed Humood FA1411001591796 Forum Jan 7 2015 This Panel makes that inference Respondent has actual knowledge of Complainant s mark at the time of domain name registration based on the fame of Complainant

of fact a quick search on Google for SANOFI would have revealed to the Respondent that all the results retrieved are strictly related to the Complainant and its trademark As for the use of the Domain Name based on the evidence submitted the

Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See Google Inc v Domain Admin FA 1502001605239 Forum Mar 22 2015 finding that use of a disputed domain name to aid illegal activities under Complainant s trademark suggests Respondent s bad faith Complainant asserts that

Annex G and evidence of a Google search that yielded results for a poet named chen chen but no results for Respondent See Complaint Annex H It is evident then that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name Complainant states that

the Respondent s country A Google search on the expression CREDIT AGRICOLE® displays several results all of them being related to the Complainant and its banking activity Furthermore past Panels stated that the Complainant's trademark has a

the Respondent engaged in a Google or trade mark search The use of the Domain Name both in its previous redirection to a commercial website and its present redirection to an inactive page amounts to use in bad faith given the surrounding

bort domännamnet från Google men Tvistlösaren hade funnit �Innehavaren kan i och för sig åter parkera domännamnet hos Google eller genomföra annan användning i ond tro Det finns dock inget som för närvarande talar för att

�Desjardins Capital � on the Google search engine demonstrates links to many webpages managed by its group and that searches on social media also confirm its association with that term in the context of financial services The Complainant asserts

� in a search engine such as Google revealed only the Complainant �s business on the first page The Panel is therefore convinced that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant when it registered the disputed domain name and that the Fenty Beauty

Paragraph 4 b iii and iv Google Inc v James Lucas / FireStudio / Jameschee / FIRESTUDIO / SEONG YONG FA1502001605757 Forum Apr 7 2015 This Panel agrees that Respondent s inclusion of advertisements to likely reap click-through fees is an