with Complainant � See also Google Inc v Domain Admin / Whois 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

has also submitted Google search results showing that a Google search for frontline plus results in hits concerning only the Complainant s products While both words FRONTLINE and PLUS are dictionary words the combination of these two

over 500 million times in Google Play and is ranked number 1 among entertainment applications in the Apple Store The Complainant owns multiple trademark registrations in multiple jurisdictions including United States trademark registration

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

name Registrar which includes Google ads generated by Google and links to animal hip injuries It is not shown that Respondent had any knowledge of the links generated by Google or that the ads existed more than 15 years ago when the disputed domain

the addition of au a simple Google search would have revealed the Complainant s existence at the time There is no obvious reason nor has the Respondent offered an explanation for the Respondent to register a domain name wholly incorporating the

www.mooseknucklescanada.com Google and Bing searches for the term moose knuckles result in hits that refer to the Complainant and its products rather than in the context of any generic or descriptive use The Respondent appears to be an individual

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 Respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose

had carried even a basic Google search in respect of the wordings INTESA SANPAOLO INTESA and BANCA INTESA SANPAOLO the same would have yielded obvious references to the Complainant Therefore it is more than likely that the domain name at issue

name For example by searching Google for voi.se or voi there is no information nor even indication of the terms related to the Domain Holder but instead the results show information related to the Petitioner This fact asserts even further the

to 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

24 2022 � On February 24 2022 Google LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the universityrichmond.net domain name is registered with Google LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.� Google LLC has verified that Respondent

16 2022 � On February 16 2022 Google LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the carahs0fts.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

the Apple app Store and the Google Play stores confirm these activity levels Complainant s official www.instagram.com website is currently ranked as the twenty-first most visited website in the world according to the information company Alexa and

United States trademark and Google searches for the word reimex The Respondent is unable to reproduce the results of these searches of November 2018 and provided a Google search conducted on January 13 2022 as Exhibit A to his Response which

a dictionary word and that a Google search produces results that predominantly refer to the Complainant Thus the Complainant argues that it is reasonable to conclude that the Respondent registered the Domain Name with full knowledge of the

WIPO Case No D2012-0027 Google Inc v ShaheenYounas WIPO Case No D2012-1365 The American Automobile Association Inc v Cameron Jackson / PrivacyDotLink Customer 2440314 WIPO Case No D2016-1671 Third the Panel finds similarly to other UDRP

search or a simple search via Google or any other search engine using the keyword sandoz would have revealed to the Respondent the existence and use of the Trade Mark The Respondent s failure to do so is a contributory factor to its bad faith In

Respondent has opted to run Google Ads on its website thus directly profiting from the traffic it attracts As is the nature of Google Ads Complainant s competitors too can advertise and indeed have as seen from Annex 35 of the Complaint Here such

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 29 2022 On January 31 2022 the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a