June 2 2022   On June 3 2022 Google LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the nestcam.support domain name is registered with Google LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Google LLC has verified that Respondent is

Policy ¶¶ 4 c i or iii See Google LLC v Tim Sales FA 1363660  Forum Jan 31 2018 T he Panel finds that Respondent is using the googlesalessupport.com domain name to redirect Internet users to Complainant's website and finds that Respondent lacks

my mark and SEO ranking on google and other search engines.   The UPSTO granted the litigant their mark even though my mark was STILL IN EXISTENCE and VALID during their application Clearly they did zero research into the name

Policy ¶ 4 b iv see also 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   Moreover Respondent had

in Liechtenstein and all Google search results with the keywords mintlayer and mintlayer foundation are related to the Complainant Considering the prior relationship between the parties and that the disputed domain name redirects to the

May 25 2022   On May 26 2022 Google LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the morganstanleycorporate.com domain name is registered with Google LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Google LLC has verified that

evidence in the form of Google searches for the string stating further that it is not found in any dictionary The Respondent has failed to participate in these proceedings and therefore offers nothing that would rebut these submissions The

trademarks HENNESSY All the Google results for the term HENNESSY refers to the Complainant Thus it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademarks which is a

Respondent had carried out a Google search for the term IKKS the search results would have yielded immediate and obvious references to the Complainant In light of these factors it is therefore reasonable to infer that the Respondent either knew or

under Policy ¶ 4 b iv See Google Inc v Petrovich FA 1339345 Forum Sept 23 2010 finding that a disputed domain name which resolves to a landing page that distributes malware to Internet users computers demonstrates Respondent's bad faith under

asserts that all the Google results of a search of the term PRADAXA refer to the Complainant s drug and adduced evidence of the Google results which shows the reference to the trademark made in the first webpage results The Panel considers

Internet search engines like Google.com the vast majority of the results relate to the Complainant s official websites or websites directly referring to the Complainant and career opportunities at the Complainant When searching for the name of the

s queries performed on Google search engine on valdoxan and coralan only brought up results concerning the Complainant s medicine on the first pages The Complainant performed verifications on WIPO s global brand database all the trademarks

known by a domain name See Google LLC v Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus FA 1799694 Forum Sept 4 2018 concluding that Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the WHOIS of record identifies the Respondent as Bhawana

to Policy ¶ 4 a i See Google LLC v Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus FA 1799694 Forum Sep 4 2018 Complainant has rights in the GMAIL mark based upon its registration of the mark with numerous trademark agencies around the world see also

the disputed domain name See Google LLC v Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus FA 1799694 Forum Sept 4 2018 concluding that Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the WHOIS of record identifies the Respondent as Bhawana

under Policy ¶ 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   Moreover the Panel finds

¶¶ 4 b iii and iv see also Google Inc v Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp FA1506001622862 Forum Aug 10 2015 finding that the respondent's apparent use of the disputed domain name in furtherance of a ‘phishing scheme further established its bad

had carried out even a basic Google search in respect of the wording BRICOFER the same would have yielded obvious references to the Complainant The Complainant submits an extract of a Google search in support of its allegation This raises a clear

demonstrating bad faith 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

May 19 2022   On May 20 2022 Google LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the katiemartinstatefarminsuranceagent.com domain name is registered with Google LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name Google LLC has verified

¶ 4 c ii   See for example Google LLC v Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus FA 1799694 Forum September 4 2018 concluding that a respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name incorporating the GOOGLE mark where the relevant WHOIS

for All Novartis bio in the Google search engine the search results all pointed to the Complainant and its business activities 4 The Complainant contends that the Respondent obviously knew about the Complainant and its trademark NOVARTIS when it

mark under Policy ¶ 4 a i See Google LLC v Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus FA 1799694 Forum Sept 4 2018 Complainant has rights in the GMAIL mark based upon its registration of the mark with numerous trademark agencies around the world see also

c ii   See Google Inc v S S / Google International FA1506001625742 Forum Aug 4 2015 Respondent did identify itself as ‘Google International in connection with its registration of the Disputed Domain Name and this is reflected in the WHOIS

to Policy ¶ 4 c ii   See also Google LLC v Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus FA 1799694 Forum September 4 2018 concluding that a respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name where nothing in the record showed that that respondent was

and English   On May 17 2022 Google LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the locatier.com domain name is registered with Google LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Google LLC has verified that Respondent is bound

and as the evidence of a Google search produced by the Complainant demonstrates this phrase signifies the Complainant s trademark alone while no other meanings or uses are indicated In these circumstances the Panel reasonably infers that the

Complainant if one conducts a Google search on NOVARTIS INDIA all the results returned by the search engine are related to the Complainant The Panel has also conducted a search on NOVARTIS INDIA LIMITED and even in this case all the results refer

purposes of Policy ¶ 4 a i   Google LLC v Hai Min Xu / Xu Hai Min / haimin xu FA 1779597 Forum May 3 2018 finding the opensourcegoogle.com domain name to be confusingly similar to the GOOGLE OPEN SOURCE mark as the domain name consists of the mark

ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION   Google LLC v Ján er anský Claim Number FA2205001995211   PARTIES Complainant is Google LLC Complainant represented by Matthew J Snider of Dickinson Wright PLLC Michigan USA.  Respondent is Ján er anský Respondent

registration and use See Google LLC v alexandra kepelek FA2111001972818 Forum Dec 8 2021 citing State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co v Cofield FA1799574 Forum Sept 10 2018 finding bad faith under UDRP Section 4 a iii where the domain name initially

has been translated with Google Translate   This leaves internet users under the false impression that the website is owned by Complainant or one of its official licensees Respondent has posted a copyright notice specifically stating IQOS

  Google LLC v John / Gmailnator Claim Number FA2205001996702   PARTIES Complainant is Google LLC Complainant represented by Fabricio Vayra of Perkins Coie LLP District of Columbia USA.  Respondent is John / Gmailnator Respondent

under Policy ¶ 4 c ii   See Google LLC v Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus FA 1799694 Forum Sept 4 2018 concluding that Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the WHOIS of record identifies the Respondent as Bhawana

MORGAN STANLEY because i a Google search for webpages that contain both the terms Morgan Stanley and MS yielded over 5 million results ii Complainant's stock has been publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol MS for

the disputed domain name See Google LLC v Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus FA 1799694 Forum Sept 4 2018 concluding that Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the WHOIS of record identifies the Respondent as Bhawana

May 17 2022   On May 17 2022 Google LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the blinkifi.com domain name is registered with Google LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Google LLC has verified that Respondent is bound

registration and use See Google Inc v Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp FA1506001622862 Forum Aug 10 2015 finding that the respondent's apparent use of the disputed domain name in furtherance of a ‘phishing scheme further established its bad

ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION   Google LLC v 1337 services LLC Claim Number FA2204001993917   PARTIES Complainant is Google LLC Complainant represented by Matthew J Snider of Dickinson Wright PLLC Michigan USA.  Respondent is 1337 services LLC

May 10 2022   On May 11 2022 Google LLC confirmed by email to the Forum that the medlineindustrieslp.com domain name is registered with Google LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name Google LLC has verified that Respondent is

in the search engines Google and Baidu the returned results pointed to the Complainant and its business activities and not to the Respondent In addition the Complainant further contends that the disputed domain names resolved to

under Policy ¶ 4 b iv See Google Inc v Bassano FA 232958 Forum Mar 8 2004 holding that the respondent's use of the googlesex.info domain name to intentionally attract Internet users to a website featuring adult-oriented content constituted bad

the domain name at issue Google LLC v Noboru Maruyama / Personal FA 2001001879162 Forum Mar 3 2020 the registration and use of domain name that is confusingly similar to a trademark with which the respondent has no connection has frequently

the disputed domain name See Google Inc v Pritam Singh / Pandaje Technical Services Pvt Ltd Case No FA 1660771 Forum Mar 17 2016 agreeing that Respondent had not shown any bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or

Respondent had carried out a Google search for the name ARCELORMITTAL the search results would have yielded immediate and obvious references to the Complainant The Panel concludes that it is difficult in those circumstances to believe that the

if it were deny it a basic Google search would have brought Complainant's INTESA SANPAOLO and INTESA to its attention and the same would have yielded obvious references to the Complainant The Complainant submits as part of its evidence an

the disputed domain name See Google LLC v Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus FA 1799694 Forum Sept 4 2018 concluding that Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the WHOIS of record identifies the Respondent as Bhawana

c ii   See Google Inc v S S / Google International FA1506001625742 Forum Aug 4 2015 Respondent did identify itself as ‘Google International in connection with its registration of the Disputed Domain Name and this is reflected in the WHOIS

known by the Domain Name See Google LLC v Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus FA 1799694 Forum Sept 4 2018 concluding that Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the WHOIS of record identifies the Respondent as Bhawana