for the Trade Mark Google Trends data and graphs demonstrate that the Complainant s Trade Marks became popular search terms in the Google search engine just three months after the date of first use of the Trade Mark The Respondent has

flu with Complainant's famous GOOGLE Mark as Complainant previously alleged.    2.    Respondent also confirms he embedded Complainant's entire Google Coronavirus Update page which prominently features the famous GOOGLE Mark into the website

per Policy ¶¶ 4 b iii and iv Google Inc v James Lucas / FireStudio / Jameschee / FIRESTUDIO / SEONG YONG FA 1605757 Forum Apr 7 2015 This Panel agrees that Respondent's inclusion of advertisements to likely reap click-through fees is an example of

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 February 25 2020 On February 25 2020 the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a

search engines such as Google for the term d A cease and desist letter was sent out to the Respondent on the January 27 2020 as well as a final reminder was sent on February 4 2020 Complainant received no response e Respondent s use to host

glencore and group in the Google search engine the returned results all pointed to the Complainant and its business activities The Respondent could have easily performed a similar search before registering the disputed domain name and would

demonstrates 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 indicates Respondent's bad faith   As such the Panelist

mark under 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 Here

by entering FB into a Google search refer to Complainant Complainant has developed considerable reputation and goodwill worldwide in both its services and brands including its FB Mark which is registered in many jurisdictions throughout the

of Complainant 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

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

¶ 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

noncommercial or fair use Google Inc v Onur Koycegiz FA1741705 Forum Aug 25 2017 finding that respondent's use of the disputed domain name in association with a website that enabled internet users to violate complainant's terms of service did

the addition of au a simple Google search would have revealed the Complainant s existence Furthermore the Respondent in registering the Domain Name acted to hide its identity through the use of false contact details which implicated the named

of a lot of thrown all over google about you and every single member on your site Bella you wont like what google will bring up with your name when im done I promise you Did i mention im sue proof LOL Lets play ball bellafrenchrealname.com is

or fair use See also Google Inc v Mahmut Karaca / Karaca Grup Ltd Sti FA1682647 Forum Jul 25 2016 Respondent s use of the confusingly similar domain name to divert Internet users to its own website is neither a bona fide offering of goods

are also listed as lawyers in Google search results The Respondent also argues that a Belgian court decision invoked by the Complainant was a default decision The Respondent finally submits some Belgian news articles relating to avocats.be and SOS

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

similar domain name see also Google Inc v Domain Admin / Whoisf 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

  FINDINGS 1.    Respondent's googlechina.com domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's GOOGLE mark 2.    Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the googlechina.com domain name 3.    Respondent registered or used