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

� 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

with consumers and a Google search reveals that results lead to sites operated by Complainant Therefore consumers viewing the disputed domain name will assume a connection with Complainant Complainant does not believe that Respondent is

as on its business documents Google searches for the LE DUFF brand reveal Complainant s marks as the first hits Prior UDRP decisions have held that Complainant holds well-established rights in the GROUPE LE DUFF and LE DUFF marks and that its

сервісі Google Ads вводить споживачів в оману �'ідповідач не був відомий стосовно оспорюваних доменних імен �'ідповідач не здійсню�

the terms CNEWS in the Google search engine the returned results all point to the Complainant and its business activity From the Complainant s perspective by associating the disputed domain name with phishing mail the Respondent is intending

13 2020 � On February 13 2020 Google Llc Google LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the kreqtool.com domain name is registered with Google Llc Google LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name Google Llc Google LLC has

3 2020 � On February 4 2020 Google LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the i-aon.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 the

domain names It avers that a Google search conducted by it in respect of the disputed domain name resolved to a parked website and the fact that it may be used to divert searchers fraudulently inducing them to believe it is associated with the

use per Policy � 4 b iii see Google Inc v Petrovich FA 1339345 Forum Sept 23 2010 finding that disputed domain names which distribute malware to Internet users computers demonstrate Respondent's bad faith under Policy � 4 b iv Complainant provides

11 2020 � On February 12 2020 Google LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the jobs-sysco.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

10 2020 � On February 12 2020 Google LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the sodaxo.us 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 the

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

and a quick trademark or Google search for touax would have revealed the existence of the Complainant and of the TOUAX trademark registered for goods and services similar to the services offered on the Respondent s website The Complainant

is registered with Google LLC the Registrar 3 Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center the Center on December 19 2019 On December 19 2019 the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a

USPTO registrations for the GOOGLE mark e.g Reg No 2 884 502 registered Sep 14 2004 Therefore the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the GOOGLE mark per Policy � 4 a i � Complainant next claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly

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 23 2020 On January 23 2020 the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a

WIPO Case No D2004-0962 Google Inc v Nijat Hassanov WIPO Case No D2011-1054 In view of the 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 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

� 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