rights in a mark 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

words were generic A recent Google search showed that there are some 17 million entries under this expression and a record search of the company's house UK showed that there are some 61 000 entries including these words � More specifically the

primary Australian website Google searches for the disputed domain name yield results related to Complainant which would confuse Internet users and cause them to believe that Respondent is an agent of Complainant in Indonesia The disputed domain

WIPO Case No D2004-0962 Google Inc v Nijat Hassanov WIPO Case No D2011-1054 Accordingly the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4 a i of the Policy B Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel further

is registered with Google LLC the Registrar 3 Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center the Center on May 16 2020 On May 18 2020 the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request

en el motor de búsqueda Google y claramente está conformada a partir de la denominación Rotoplas Además la dirección de contacto no existe en la Ciudad de México sino en Rolandia Brasil y de ello se puede inferir que la información del

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 5 2020 On June 8 2020 the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request

to Policy � 4 a 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

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

Policy �� 4 c i or iii See Google Inc v Onur Koycegiz FA1741705 Forum Aug 25 2017 finding that respondent's use of the 10youtube.com domain name in association with a website that enabled Internet users to download and save content from Google's

to Policy � 4 a 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

імені вд Google LLC v Aлександр � митрович Бутенко WIPO Case No DUA2020-0009 З урахуванням наведеного вище Комісія приходить до висновку що

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 3 2020 On June 3 2020 the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request

which has been blocked by Google Safe Browsing through a warning page It is obvious that the main purpose of the Respondent was to use the above website for phishing financial information in an attempt to defraud the Complainant s customers and

per 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

had carried even a basic Google search in respect of the terms INTESA and INTESA SANPAOLO this would have yielded obvious references to the Complainant's brand as the Complainant has shown in its submissions This raises a clear inference of

advertising links based on a Google advertiser feed on hosted domain names sharing the advertising revenue with the domain name owners Respondent adds its emphasis Respondent has used the Domain Name to display descriptive PPC advertising links

by web browsers such as Google Chrome with a warning that it may contain and distribute viruses and/or malware 5 Parties Contentions A Complainant According to Complainant the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant s

it is evident from a basic Google search in respect of the wordings INTESA and 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

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 The Complainant submits an extract of a Google search in support of its allegation