of Complainant s website on google searches for adp both of which support a finding that ADP is a well-known mark associated with Complainant s services Therefore the Panel finds that the notoriety of the ADP mark allows it to infer that

toyotapartsco.com google-i.com and bmwremotekey.com This demonstrates that the Respondent is engaging in a pattern of cybersquatting/typosquatting which is evidence of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name The

some 2 580 searches for it on Google The Complainant has a registered trademark in the United Kingdom Trademark Number UK00002555110 for a composite mark consisting of a device of wings over the words Wealth Dragons and Unleashed This trademark was

the domain name See Google Inc v Ahmed Humood FA1411001591796 Forum January 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

from registered marks See Google Inc v DktBot.org FA 286993 Forum Aug 4 2004 The mere addition of a single letter to the complainant s mark does not remove the respondent s domain names from the realm of confusing similarity in relation to the

into question It adduced a Google.de search screenshot claiming that its uniformity of VW-related results proves GTI is only associated with the VW Golf in the European and especially German customer s mind 2 Bad faith The Complainant stated

by typing the term FIREFOX in Google s search engine available at www.google.com refer to the Complainant The Complainant was recently alerted to the fact that its FIREFOX trademark had been registered under the com generic Top Level-Domain gTLD by

apparel and embroidery A Google.com search for Hakoba brings up both the Complainant s site and the Respondent s website at the disputed domain name hakoba.com on the first page of search results Registration of a domain name before a

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

search engines such as Google when you enter ESTABLISHED MAN In addition to statutory rights Complainant also contends that it enjoys common law rights supported by the popularity of its own establishedmen.com domain name on popular search

0624 WIPO Aug 21 2000 vii 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

domain name resolves in a Google search not its own distinct webpage See Compl at Attached Ex F Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the ofis-365.org domain name in bad faith by failing to make an active use of the

the use made of it 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

of confusing similarity See Google Inc v Xtraplus Corp D2001-0125 WIPO Apr 16 2001 finding that the respondent s domain names were confusingly similar to Complainant s GOOGLE mark where the respondent merely added common terms such as buy or gear

28 2017 On April 28 2017 Google Inc confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the ageekthought.com domain name is registered with Google Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name Google Inc has verified that Respondent is bound

as the first result of a Google search on the name CITADEL The Panel therefore finds more likely than not that Respondent had actual knowledge of the CITADEL trademarks at the time of registration of the Disputed Domain Name and that he

expression body magic in the Google search engine As the Respondent points out other links on the print out point to other businesses using the expression in connection with a line of shape wear clothing The Complainant relies on the evidence of

hmrc google co 2 0 1 www.gov.uk government organisations hm-revenue-customs

noncommercial or fair use See Google Inc v Pritam Singh / Pandaje Technical Services Pvt Ltd FA 1660771 Forum March 17 2016 agreeing that respondent has not shown any bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair

and services online through Google AdWords and has advertised through newspapers magazines radio and other websites Respondent s telcan.com is identical to the TELCAN mark as it merely adds the generic top-level domain gTLD com to Complainant s