trade mark database searches Google search engine searches and searches on business registers have not surfaced any registered rights belonging to the Respondent in the name klarna The passive holding of the disputed domain names does not

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

news article disclosed in a Google search for BITTREX refers to Complainant Given Complainant s a more than three years of continuous use of the BITTREX trademark b its extensive marketing and advertising expenditures to promote the BITTREX

in the Domain Name see also Google Inc v Alex Dori FA 1623672 Forum July 13 2015 Given that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to offer illegal content for download and streaming the Panel finds that Respondent s use of the disputed

domain names she inherited A Google search establishes vast numbers of contexts in which �KTG � is used worldwide including not only businesses and institutions but also as an airport code and the name of an enzyme The Respondent provides

and the Complainant Finally a Google search on the term showroomprive.com displays information regarding the Complainant On those facts the Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name showroomprivé.com is identical to its prior trademark

submitted a screenshot of a Google search of the terms pet plan trying thereby to prove that those terms are generic but said screenshot shows that virtually all results in the first three pages of the Google search relate to the Complainant In

Policy Paragraph 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

the disputed domain name See Google Inc v Ahmed Humood FA 1591796 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

to be known by that name See Google Inc v S S / Google International FA1506001625742 Forum Aug 4 2015 Respondent did identify itself as Google International in connection with its registration of the Disputed Domain Name and this is reflected in

Paragraph 4 c ii see also Google Inc v S S / Google International FA1506001625742 Forum Aug 4 2015 Respondent did identify itself as Google International in connection with its registration of the Disputed Domain Name and this is reflected in

in a domain name Further see Google Inc v S S / Google International FA1506001625742 Forum August 4 2015 Respondent did identify itself as Google International in connection with its registration of the Disputed Domain Name and this is reflected

is registered with Google Inc the Registrar 3 Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center the Center on October 31 2017 On November 1 2017 the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a

of an Internet search on Google at this time There is no indication whether such a search was made before registering the disputed domain name and without such a claim being made the Panel infers that the Respondent did not or else he would

search results made on the Google search engine on the term basf showing that all relevant results refer to the Complainant The Complainant also provided the results of a trademark search conducted among trademark registrations in the name of

the disputed domain name See Google Inc v Ahmed Humood FA 1591796 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

samt bilder från google På sidan publiceras även flödet från ett påhittat Twitter-konto som refererar till L.H FC @FanClub där N.M förutom skräpinlägg publicerar inlägg som kan kopplas till L.H Innehavaren är en före detta

When entering the terms in Google search engine the first returned results point to the Complainant‘s official website The Respondent could easily perform a similar search before registering the Disputed Domain Name and would have quickly

the disputed domain name See Google Inc v Ahmed Humood FA1411001591796 Forum Jan 7 2015 This Panel makes that inference Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant s mark at the time of domain name registration based on the fame of Complainant

Policy Paragraph 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