billion in sales went through google like just now Also to enlighten you about the process of buying a domain the trademark holders and established companies were given 8 days time period to claim the domain Most of the vigilant tech-savvy

Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See Google Inc v Domain Admin FA 1502001605239 Forum Mar 22 2015 finding that use of a disputed domain name to aid illegal activities under Complainant s trademark suggests Respondent s bad faith Next it is clear that

das Suchmaschinen-Ranking Google Platz 4 / Bing Platz 2 / Yahoo Platz 2 Die Webseite des Beschwerdefuhrers clips4sale taucht bei Verwendung derselben Suchbegriffe nicht einmal unter den Top100 auf Umgekehrt erscheint die Domain Clips4Coins

of that evidence came from a Google search result exhibited by the Respondent providing details of the websites mentioning the expression and the dates of use The Complainant Supplemental Filing of June 13 2018 produced evidence purporting to show

Moreover in relevant contexts Google uses and consumers recognize the Play Store wording as being a short-form reference to Google s Google Play Store which is the online store associated with Google s GOOGLE PLAY products and services 3 On March 6

al mismo en el buscador de Google Que con anterioridad a la presentación de la Demanda remitió varias comunicaciones al Demandado informándole de la infracción de sus marcas y solicitando que procediera a transferirle los nombres de dominio

notes that all results under Google search for ELECTROLUX are related to the Complainant The Complainant summarizes that its ELECTROLUX Trademark is well-known in respect of home appliance industry and that it is highly unlikely that the

Twitter Instagram YouTube Google and Pinterest The Complainant has proven to be the owner of the FENDI and Fan di FENDI trademarks which enjoy protection through numerous registrations worldwide The Complainant is inter alia the owner of

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

the domain name See Google Inc v Ahmed Humood FA1411001591796 Forum January 7 2015 finding bad faith registration where Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant s mark at the time of domain name registration based on the fame of

through these and through Google Adsense The disputed domain name ranked highly in Google results during the operation of a website under the disputed domain name Thus the disputed domain name was used by the Respondent for a legitimate

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

the disputed domain name See Google Inc v Ahmed Humood FA1591796 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 s

Policy Paragraph 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 Complainant

internet rights and Google recommendations and there will be no confusion between the Complainant's website and his website/app for students it is hard to choose a domain name with general words because all the relevant words are

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

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

had performed even a basic Google search in respect of the phrase INTESASANPAOLO the search results would have shown obvious references to Complainant On March 30 2018 Complainant s attorneys sent a cease and desist letter to Respondent asking

search or indeed a simple Google search before registering the Disputed Domain Names would have revealed the existence of the Complainants prior trademark rights in the SOFITEL trademarks therefore considering the worldwide reputation of the

media presence on Facebook Google pages and Twitter The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on January 22 2018 according to the Registrar WhoIs records The disputed domain name does not currently resolve to an active website and does