reviewed a World Atlas and Google Maps to seek clarity on the issue WIPO Overview 3.0 at paragraph 4.8 The Panel has confirmed that there is no actual geographic location such as a village town hamlet or region in Scotland by the name of

WIPO Case No D2004-0962 Google Inc v Nijat Hassanov WIPO Case No D2011-1054 In view of the finding above the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has met the requirements under paragraph 4 a i of the Policy B Rights or Legitimate Interests

term something a simple Google and Baidu search would have readily disclosed Further the Complainant points out that the email address used by the Respondent domainhk@ is linked to a number of other domain name cases and the Complainant

services in general In fact a Google search for the Invivo Group terms conducted by the Panel on July 1 2020 revealed that the first sixteen results referred to or were related to Complainant For its part the registrant of the disputed domain name

11 2020 � On June 12 2020 Google LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the actcomnodities.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

Victor Tok Kai Beng and no Google results were available for a search for the term Victor ‘Tok Kai Beng Davidoff Complainant states that prior UDRP decisions support the contention that Respondent cannot be considered as commonly known by the

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 4 2020 On May 4 2020 the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for

online trading It notes that Google searches show the Complainant s FXCM brand and related services as the first result and submits in any event that the use by the Respondent of the Complainant s FXCM logo on the website to which the disputed

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 15 2020 On May 18 2020 the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request

� 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

disputed domain name A simple Google search for Gen brings up no results relating to the Respondent Nor is there any evidence that the Respondent is commonly known as Gen or any variation of that name or that the Respondent is connected with any

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 May 28 2020 On May 29 2020 the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request

Further a simple search via Google or any other search engine using the keyword vichy or even vichys demonstrates that all first results relate to the Complainant s products or news In addition the Complainant submits that the Disputed Domain

Names are registered with Google LLC the Registrar 3 Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center the Center on April 4 2020 On April 6 2020 the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request

mark under Policy � 4 a i See Google Inc v DktBot.org FA 286993 Forum Aug 4 2004 The mere addition of a single letter to the complainant's mark does not remove the respondent's domain names from the realm of confusing similarity in relation to the

mark under Policy � 4 a i See Google Inc v DktBot.org FA 286993 Forum Aug 4 2004 The mere addition of a single letter to the complainant's mark does not remove the respondent's domain names from the realm of confusing similarity in relation to the

had carried even a basic Google search in respect of the wordings RIO CASAMIA the same would have yielded obvious references to the Complainant The Complainant submits as Annex D an extract of a Google search in support of its allegation This

had carried out a basic Google search for INTESA and INTESA SANPAOLO it would have yielded obvious references to the Complainant It submits this is evidence of registration of the domain name in bad faith ii The disputed domain name is not

its services Finally all the Google results for a search of the terms LOGIN BOURSORAMA refers to the Complainant Thus the Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the

a Policy � 4 a i analysis See Google Inc v Milan Kovac FA 1391350 Forum July 14 2011 the domain name consists of Complainant's mark combined with the generic term �dot and the generic top-level domain �gTLD �.com � The Panel therefore finds that