2011 finding bad faith when a Google search done by Respondent at the time it registered the domain name would have easily disclosed Complainant business and therefore with due diligence on the part of Respondent led to discovering Complainant

some evidence in the form of Google search results to show that it may have made some use its CLIPS4SALE mark prior to April 23 2002 Complainant has not established that those alleged uses afforded its CLIPS4SALE mark widespread market recognition

under the Policy 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

has been identified through a Google Image search as dating 2015 Besides the disputed website has unfinished and incomplete looks what tarnishes the Complainant s image Complainant asserts that Respondant s bad faith is all the more obvious as the

Name � is registered with Google LLC the �Registrar � 3 Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center the �Center � on April 26 2018 On April 27 2018 the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a

of Policy Paragraph4 a i See Google Inc v Henry Brito FA 1297484 Forum Jan 25 201 finding that the addition of two letters to Complainant s mark is insufficient to adequately distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark and the addition of a

exhibits the results of a Google search for the term �cassandra � and states that this generates 491 million results and that there is no reference to the Complainant in the first two pages of those results It also exhibits evidence of 21 live

the Domain Holder �s partner Google The advertisements shown on the websites are based on the visitor �s preferences and browsing history Some of the domain names are developed into informational websites with the purpose of generating relevant

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

See 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

is registered with Google Inc the �Registrar � 3 Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center the �Center � on April 5 2018 On April 5 2018 the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a

as a search term in the Google search engine it treats that term as the equivalent of the term ann summers Therefore the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Mark as outlined in paragraph 4 a i

says anyone doing a Google search on kipling will not receive a listing showing the disputed domain name That appears to be correct at least for the first two pages of search results The Respondent also provides evidence that the disputed

confusingly similar to USPS Google Inc v David Miller FA 1067791 Forum Oct 24 2007 finding youtubex.com confusingly similar to YOUTUBE The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights

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

results on the search engine Google.com for the search term and BIDVEST 13 The Complainant has generated extensive press coverage 14 The Complainant regularly issues press releases 15 The Complainant was listed on the Forbes Global 2000 a list of

Road Registry Inc Registrars Google Inc EXAMINER The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding Ms Kateryna

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

Ring Crown was translated by Google Translate from the Chinese descriptive words the circular crown cover The Domain Name describes the Respondent products which is why it picked the Domain Name The products of the Complainant are made of

Policy Paragraph4 c iii See Google Inc v Gridasov FA 474816 Forum July 5 2005 finding that the respondent s use of a disputed domain name that attempts to download malicious computer software into the computers of those who visit the website