for Buynovartis in the Google search engine most of the search results point to the Complainant and its business activities The Respondent could have easily performed a similar search before registering the disputed domain name and would

Complainant's website.  See Google LLC v Abbas Khan FA2108001959001 Forum Sept 9 2021 use of domain name to divert users away from complainant's website to respondent's website constitutes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under

¶ 4 c ii   See for example Google LLC v Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus FA 1799694 Forum September 4 2018 concluding that a respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name incorporating the GOOGLE mark where the relevant WHOIS

est enregistré auprès de Google LLC ci-après désigné l Unité d enregistrement 3 Rappel de la procédure Une plainte a été déposée par Boursorama S.A auprès du Centre d arbitrage et de médiation de l Organisation Mondiale de la

est enregistré auprès de Google LLC ci-après désigné l Unité d enregistrement 3 Rappel de la procédure Une plainte a été déposée par Carrefour SA auprès du Centre d arbitrage et de médiation de l Organisation Mondiale de la

search engines such as Google.com there are no relevant returned results that would indicate that the Respondent is known by the Disputed Domain Name When searching for the terms lurpak.top or lurpak and top the vast majority of the results

name was entered into a Google Chrome browser the Internet user was forwarded to different websites seemingly at random Complainant provides examples of the destination websites which include a parking page and the websites of well-known

under Policy ¶ 4 a i See Google LLC v Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus FA 1799694 Forum Sept 4 2018 Complainant has rights in the GMAIL mark based upon its registration of the mark with numerous trademark agencies around the world   In the

c ii  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 the WHOIS

domain name appearing in Google searches In his emails the Respondent said that his website had been present on the Internet for many years and that his website and the WhatsApp website are far and wide mismatched The Respondent notes that he

2021 elle a demandé à Google de déréférencer le site litigieux ce que Google a immédiatement fait Le 7 septembre 2021 la Requérante a constaté la réapparition du même site litigieux cette fois sous l adresse dinh-van.com Ledit nom

¶ 4 c ii   See for example Google LLC v Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus FA 1799694 Forum September 4 2018 concluding that a respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name incorporating the GOOGLE mark where the relevant WHOIS

is known globally 2 A simple Google search shows the Complainant s trademark ALI EXPRESS and the platform operating under that trademark 3 The disputed domain name was registered some years after the registration and use of the trademark

on popular engine such as Google evidences that the Trademark AIRTEL and AIRTEL 121 are associated with the Complainant and no one else The well-known nature of the Complainant s Trademark AIRTEL has prior statutory registrations and also the

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 This Panel coincides with Complainant s argument and finds its emphasis at point

term Myka on the Internet via Google or any other search engine would have revealed to the Respondent the existence of the Complainant and the Complainant s rights The Respondent s failure to do so is a contributory factor to its bad faith The

maintains that a simple Google search would have informed Respondent of the existence of Complainant and its services Complainant also argues that because Respondent is not making any bona fide offering of goods and services with the disputed

translation per the Complaint Google translate michelin tires-michelin and tires-michelin respectively The Domain Names incorporate an Arabic translation of the MICHELIN trademark of Complainant in its entirety and the use of Punycode to create a

the Respondent through a Google search apart from its location in Switzerland is that it is in the business of IT Engineering and Consulting Against this background an inference is available that the Respondent adopted the disputed domain name

Policy ¶ 4 a iii 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