June 25 2018 On June 24 2018 Google LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the prottiviti.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

ilk bakışta anlatmak Google gibi arama motorlarında en başta listelenmek olduğunu �san � ekinin sanayi kelimesinin kısaltması olması nedeniyle enerjisan.com ve enerjisan.net alan adlarını satın almak istediğini ancak bu alan

trademark search or simple Google Internet search is a contributory factor establishing bad faith Complainant also asserts that Respondent �s deliberate concealment of its identity and contact information indicated registration in bad faith

domain name See for example Google Inc v James Lucas FA 605757 Forum April 7 2015 This Panel agrees that Respondent s inclusion of advertisements to likely reap click-through fees is an example of bad faith pursuant Policy Paragraph 4 b iv We are

links based on a Yahoo or Google advertiser feed One of the links has been to the web page www.bio-naturel.de/sante where products of the Complainant are sold The Complainant offered to buy the disputed domain name from the Respondent for 5000

business or organization A Google search of NAVI MUMBAI AIRPORT doesn �t show any activity on the disputed domain name The Respondent �s attempt of selling it to the Complainant establishes bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain

fb-facebook.com google-video.top and googletrans.com Annex 11 to the Complaint Lastly the fact that the Respondent chose not to reply to the cease-and-desist letter sent to him before this procedure is a further indication of his bad

ATONOMI mark and 3 an atonomi Google search showing that the top 80 hits referred to Complainant See Compl Exs D1 D 2 D3 & D5 The Panel therefore holds that Complainant has sufficiently established its common law rights in the ATONOMI mark per

name is registered with Google Inc the Registrar 3 Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center the Center on May 22 2018 On May 22 2018 the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request

Paragraph 4 b iii and iv 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

Paragraph 4 b iii and iv 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

App Store Apple App Store or Google Play zum Download verwendet Die mobile Applikation Diet Keto Book befinde sich derzeit noch in der Entwicklung und solle im 4 Quartal des Jahres 2018 veröffentlicht werden Dass der Beschwerdegegner den

advertising links based on a Google advertiser feed on hosted domain names sharing the advertising revenue with the domain name owners The links are not selected by the Respondent and are auto-generated by Google and are constantly changing based

com www arnoldclark Namesilo google 2 1 3 0 e g B V Dolphin Heart

located under that name on a Google search The Complainant also put up evidence of international accolades received by it notably a Cannes Film Festival award one from the International Film & TV Festival of New York and was the first advertising

and Complainant mark See e.g Google LLC v Alick Mouri FA 1776419 Forum Apr 11 2018 finding google �gifts.com confusingly similar to GOOGLE Novartis Ag v Susan Christensen D2015-0476 WIPO May 10 2015 finding novartisotc �elearning.com confusingly

the disputed domain name 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 Complainant

fair use under the Policy 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

search or at least a Google search would have revealed the Complainant �s rights in the mark ii The Respondent seems to be engaged in a pattern of cybersquatting activity as he is associated with more than 500 domain names like heineken.cc

disputed domain name 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 Complainant