through Facebook and Google to promote its name and trademark The Complainant also purchased various services from creative agencies to create commercial photographs graphics and video content for promotional purposes The Complainant also

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

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

ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION   Google LLC v Dns Admin / Google Inc Claim Number FA2003001888471   PARTIES Complainant is Google LLC Complainant represented by Brendan J Hughes of Cooley LLP District of Columbia USA.  Respondent is Dns Admin / Google

Complainant s website from Google Trends for the period between January 2004 and April 2006 As the Panel understands it Google Trends is a service which takes a representative sample of the Google search engine s database to show the popularity

the term Novartis in the Google and Baidu the leading search engine in China search engines the returned results all point to the Complainant and its business activities The Respondent could have easily performed a similar search before

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

of confusing similarity   Google Inc v Chris Gillespie FA1203001434643 Forum May 10 2012 finding the addition of the term sexting to the domain name googlesexting.com was insufficient to distinguish it from complainant's Google trademark

is confusingly similar to the GOOGLE Mark under the Policy ¶ 4 a i The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's GOOGLE Mark in its entirety with the addition of the letter g followed by the gTLD top This minor misspelling of GOOGLE adding an

Policy ¶ 4 a iii   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 The results of an online Google search for the street meaning finance support this   Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and registered and uses the domain name in good faith Respondent uses the domain name to

of 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

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

to Complainant's mark See Google LLC v Kumar Anurag FA2003001887509 Forum April 3 2020 Complainant's GOOGLE mark is the initial dominant and only distinctive element in the disputed domain name Neither the addition of the hyphen or the

¶ 4 c iii See for example Google LLC v Bhawana Chandel I 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

6 2020   On March 9 2020 Google LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the catallent.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

is registered with Google LLC the Registrar 3 Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center the Center on January 27 2020 On January 27 2020 the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a

  DECISION   Google LLC v Eduardo Perez Orue / Hombrelobo.com Claim Number FA2003001887546   PARTIES Complainant is Google LLC Complainant represented by Matthew J Snider of Dickinson Wright PLLC Michigan United States Respondent is Eduardo Perez

20 popular apps on both the Google Play Store and Apple App Store—the only shopping-related app to make the list In addition Complainant's services have received substantial unsolicited media attention   Lastly and particularly relevant to the

utkast i väntan på att Google indexerar innehållet för att bli placerad i sökresultatet 7 Diskussion och Slutsatser Ett domännamn skall enligt 7.2 i Registreringsvillkoren överföras till den som begärt tvistlösningsförfarandet om 1