Google LLC v Grigor Rostami Claim Number FA1908001859630 PARTIES Complainant is Google LLC Complainant represented by Brendan J Hughes of Cooley LLP District of Columbia USA Respondent is Grigor Rostami Respondent California USA REGISTRAR

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

Name was registered before Google which started in around 1998 also makes it difficult for the Panel to infer that the Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant at the time he registered the Disputed Domain Name This failure to

4 Forum Nov 19 2003 See also Google Inc v Aloysius Thevarajah FA0911001295342 p 4 Forum Dec 31 2009 T he googleos.org domain name resolves to a parked website that features hyperlinks to third-parties unrelated to Complainant The Panel assumes

of Policy Paragraph 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 Additionally

�DANONE � on the Baidu and Google search engines direct Internet users to the Complainants and their DANNON and DANONE products which indicates that an exclusive connection between the DANNON and DANONE trade mark and the Complainants has been

30 2019 On October 1 2019 Google LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the blooornberg.net 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

� in a search engine such as Google revealed the Complainant �s services in a prominent manner The Panel is therefore convinced that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant when it registered the disputed domain name and the Panel can find no

com bulgarihotels �www google �

to the Amended Complaint Google search results for the words �bluesprism � and �blues prism � In both instances the search engine optimisation function reads �Did you mean blue prism � which of course refers to Complainant �s trade mark As a

simple búsqueda a través de Google o cualquier otro motor de búsqueda utilizando la palabra clave �michelin � muestra que todos los primeros resultados se refieren a productos o noticias sobre el Promovente Anteriormente el nombre de dominio en

showing Apple Store and Google Play pages featuring the GOAT App showing 225800 ratings averaging over 4.8/5 and 19998 ratings averaging over 4.6/5 respectively for a total of more than 245000 ratings 6 Complainant has an imposing presence on

Policy Paragraph 4 b 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

D2010-0899 A quick search on Google for ARCELOR would have revealed to the Respondent that all the results retrieved are strictly related to the Complainant and its trademark CAC Case No 100756 ARCELORMITTAL S.A v Arcelor Staffing Solution The

by searching for BOLLORE on Google and the result was a long list of domains referring only to the company of the Complainant As the Complainant contends it is common practice that passive holding of a domain name can be considered bad faith if

produces the results of Google image searches conducted in Iran for various search terms that he claims show that roche refers to a kind of grape However the Respondent has not submitted any text search results nor any results for the search

database searches searches on Google business registers etc Complainant cannot find that the company has any registered rights in the name ZANUSSI or has become known under the name ZANUSSI The passive holding of the website is not fair use Here

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Google LLC v Mitra Haman and Samaneh Latifi Case No D2019-1233 1 The Parties The Complainant is Google LLC United States of America represented by Rouse and Co International United Arab Emirates The Respondents are

Paragraph 4 c i and iii See Google Inc v Pritam Singh / Pandaje Technical Services Pvt Ltd FA 1660771 Forum Mar 17 2016 agreeing that respondent has not shown any bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use

confusingly similar to UBS Google Inc v Chris Gillespie FA 1434643 Forum May 10 2012 finding googlebarclays.com confusingly similar to GOOGLE The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant