is the first hit on many Google search engine searches when searching for Groupe Le Duff or Le Duff Therefore Complainant asserts that the trademarks GROUPE LE DUFF and LE DUFF are well known and widely used worldwide Complainant asserts that

contains evidence that a Google search for the term evian massage returns results for the EVIAN-branded spas operated by Complainant in Asia and specifically in the Republic of Korea where Respondent is based It is implausible that Respondent

Name is registered with Google LLC the Registrar 3 Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center the Center on June 17 2020 On June 18 2020 the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request

Name is registered with Google LLC the Registrar 3 Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center the Center on June 29 2020 On June 30 2020 the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request

and services under its GOOGLE mark Complainant is the owner of numerous domestic and international registrations for its GOOGLE mark and variations thereof constituting the family of GOOGLE marks Complainant's primary website is located at

with such a respondent Google Inc v Popov Vitaly Forum FA 1612001710030 2017 WL 931805 at Feb 16 2017 � Complainant asserts that there is no evidence that before any notice of this dispute Respondent used or made demonstrable preparations to

� Google LLC v Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp Claim Number FA2007001905022 � PARTIES Complainant is Google LLC Complainant represented by Brian J Focarino of Cooley LLP District of Columbia USA.� Respondent is Domain Admin / Whois

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

� 4 c iii � 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

to Policy � 4 c iii see also Google Inc v Pritam Singh / Pandaje Technical Services Pvt Ltd FA 1660771 Forum Mar 17 2016 agreeing that respondent has not shown any bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use

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

provides a print-out of a Google search which shows results with the proper spelling of the company and the incorrect spelling BIOMERIEUX In both cases the results provide links confirming the Complainant s ownership The Complainant explains

a simple trademark search or Google search would have found the ACCENTURE trademark and the business associated with it The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use or register the Disputed Domain Name which contains the Complainant s

had carried even a basic Google search in respect of the wordings INTESA and INTESA SANPAOLO the same would have yielded obvious references to the Complainant Therefore it is more than likely that the domain name at issue would not have been

див наприклад Google LLC проти Aлександр � митрович Бутенко справа �'ОІ� № DUA2020-0009 �'раховуючи все вищенаведене Комісія прийшла до висновку

that the websites contain Google sponsored advertisements Most probably the Respondent generates an income from any click on these advertisements through the Google AdSense service The Panel is aware of the fact that previous UDRP decisions

authorization 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

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

includes active daily use of Google Facebook Twitter Instagram Amazon and Pinterest The Complainant also designed a unique hang tag which contains the LOKAI trademarks and which is copyrighted copyright registration As a result of the Complainant

word citco on the Baidu and Google search engines direct Internet users to the Complainant and its services which indicates that an exclusive connection between the CITCO trade mark and the Complainant has been established As such the Respondent