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

28 2022   On April 28 2022 Google LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the bitly.icu 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 by

by a 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

added the com gTLD see also Google Inc v Xtraplus Corp D2001-0125 WIPO Apr 16 2001 finding that the respondent's domain names were confusingly similar to Complainant's GOOGLE mark where the respondent merely added common terms such as buy or gear

under Policy ¶ 4 a iii  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

submitted the results of a Google search carried out regarding the terms ADECCO and ADECCO NY all of them related to the Complainant Furthermore the disputed domain name resolves to an active website related to the Complainant and its products

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

or gefcologistics in the Google Bar to realize that all first results refer to the Complainant s websites actualities or services Consequently the actual knowledge of the Complainant's trademarks and activities at the time of the disputed

under Policy ¶ 4 a iii 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

constitutes bad faith 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 see also Twitter Inc v

by a 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

industry along with Google Apple Amazon and Facebook It is also ranked third place in the Interbrand annual ranking of best global brands in 2021 The disputed domain names fixmicrosoft.com homemicrosoft.com microsofterror.com

and save content from Google's YouTube service in violation of Google's YouTube Terms of Service see also Google Inc v Onur Koycegiz FA1741705 Forum Aug 25 2017 finding that respondent's use of the 10youtube.com domain name in association

opportunistic bad faith 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

names are registered with Google LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names.  Google LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Google LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes

under Policy ¶ 4 b iv   See 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

opportunistic bad faith 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

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

of Facebook and second to Google Complainant and its affiliates currently employ over 1 300 people with offices in New York Los Angeles London Paris Madrid Berlin Mexico City Tel Aviv New Delhi and so forth   Complainant owns the following word

domain name Besides all the Google results of a search of the terms STADE TOULOUSAIN refers to the rugby club managed by the Complainant On those facts the Complainant claims that the use of the Complainant s trademark in the disputed domain name

collecting fees see also 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

to be a security warning by Google via the Google Chrome browser   NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED Rights The Complainant has to the satisfaction of the Panel shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly

of such domain names.  See Google Inc v Smith Smithers Forum Dec 7 2006 finding googleforums.com confusingly similar to the trademark Google   Complainant next alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain

the use made of it 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

as Facebook Youtube Instagram Google and Twitter b The Complainant is the owner of Complainant's Trademarks c The disputed domain name was registered on 2 January 2022 d Under the disputed domain name there is a website called Star Stable Coin

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  Here since Complainant provides evidence of its registration

7 2022   On April 7 2022 Google LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the wex.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 by the

top level AA 1 at issue google status.com click through third party cease and desist USA   statefarmaren com name postmaster@statefarmaren e g U S STATEFARM COM Rules 3 0 4 rockwellautomation co google-status d o DTAPLES dtaples L P Page

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

11 2022   On April 12 2022 Google LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the leidosinc.net 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

under Policy ¶ 4 b iv See 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

s websites such as Sell on Google with Shopify Easy With Drag & Drop and alike Such links also displayed third parties websites or e-commerce platforms shopify.com magezon.com At the time of filling of this complaint the disputed domain name

faith per Policy ¶ 4 b iv See Google Inc v Petrovich FA 1339345 Forum Sept 23 2010 finding that disputed domain names which distribute malware to Internet users computers demonstrate Respondent's bad faith under Policy ¶ 4 b iv see also Fanuc Ltd v

disputed domain name see also 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 iii   See for example Google LLC v Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus FA 1799694 Forum September 4 2018 finding that a respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name incorporating the GOOGLE mark where the relevant WHOIS record

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

with Complainant 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

well-known and since simple Google search of said trademarks only shows results relating to the Complainant the Complainant claims that it is more than likely that the Disputed Domain Name would not have been registered if not for the Complainant

domain name was blocked by Google Safe Browsing does support the Complainant's position The website connected to the disputed domain name was apparently classified as a dangerous website by Google Safe Browsing At least this was stated by the

world including the USPTO 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

world including the USPTO 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

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

to email Instagram facebook google WebMD Vitals YouTube and others through not just Respondent's personal accounts but also through one or more of her aliases   The Panel notes that Complainant's allegations some of which relating to the Disputed

ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION   Google LLC v Stivan Tanev Claim Number FA2204001993770   PARTIES Complainant is Google LLC Complainant represented by Matthew J Snider of Dickinson Wright PLLC Michigan USA.  Respondent is Stivan Tanev Respondent

in English   On April 10 2022 Google LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the twitter-verification.com domain name is registered with Google LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Google LLC has verified that

YOUR BALANCE bracelets from Google searches advertisements for Complainant's goods found on social media and a certification from Mark Izen Complainant's manager   However Complainant has not provided any evidence to show that it has established

that respondent's use of Google AdSense for Domains to generate revenue by the use of advertising was not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use   Complainant further contends that Respondent's use of a misspelling of the trademark SYSTIMAX by

as well as results for Google and Bing searches of the trademark Complainant also sustains in its additional submission that it has common law rights in the disputed domain name because it has been using its mark since January 2018 and has

that all of the results of a Google search of the terms BOURSORAMA refers to Complainant Besides Complainant contends that the fact that Respondent has incorporated a famous trademark into a domain name but has not demonstrated any activity in

under Policy ¶ 4 a iii 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