en Internet en el buscador Google del término bonatti los resultados direccionan al usuario al nombre de dominio en disputa como si el titular de la marca registrada fuera propietario del nombre de dominio en disputa o como si lo administrara y

with Bud Grant Productions A Google search on Bud Grant Productions confirmed that this is the name of the company Bud Grant a former president of CBS Studio s incorporated in 1987 upon leaving CBS but that search did not result in any current

to the Complainant a Google-Search for the term Ascoma displays several results which are all related to the Complainant Therefore the Respondent must have been aware of the existing trademark of the Complainant at the time of registering

by the searches conducted on Google CFE is the Complainant s well-known acronym vii The Respondent is using the disputed domain name to attract Internet users looking for the Complainant s services only to find an empty website viii The Respondent

by the searches conducted on Google CFE is the Complainant s well-known acronym vii The Respondent is using the disputed domain name to attract Internet users looking for the Complainant s services only to find an empty website viii The Respondent

two obviously generic terms A google search of euroview term yields 18300000 hits The Complainant s mark is not as well known as marks like 마이크로소� �트 Microsoft 삼성 Samsung HP Cocacola The term euroview is used globally by many

Domain Names shared the same Google Analytics Tracking ID and Property Number UA-77339520 while the other Disputed Domain Names had the same ID and Number UA-70503722 The Internet traffic is redirected between the Disputed Domain Names

Google Inc v Angel Ivanov PARTIES Complainant is Google Inc Complainant represented by Jonathan S Batchelor of Dickson Wright PLLC Arizona USA Respondent is Angel Ivanov Respondent Bulgaria REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name

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

to prove otherwise See Google Inc v Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp FA1502001605239 Forum Mar 22 2015 WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name lists Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp as the domain name s registrant and there is

not exist On the other hand a Google search for PDVSA Petroleo S.A directs the user to information regarding the Venezuelan state-owned oil and natural gas company Finally the Respondent website fails to appear even within first five 5 pages of the

to this site and according to Google Analytics the number of website hits since 2011 have been as follows Year Sessions 2011 7146008 2012 8171564 2013 14467037 2014 30163120 2015 91880885 2016 until June 27 only 54423906   GeoGebra is an invented

does so in bad faith 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

Inc Nike Innovate C.V and Google Inc v Mattia Lumini / Yykk Snc Claim Number FA1608001687597 PARTIES Complainant is NIKE Inc Nike Innovate C.V represented by David J Steele of Tucker Ellis LLP California USA and Google Inc represented by

running a phishing scheme 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

for the domain According to Google Maps the physical address listed for Respondent does not exist and despite listing its City and State as New York the postal code referenced in the WHOIS record actually refers to the city of Lansing in the

s three factors 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

of confusing similarity 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

example to the results of a Google search for circus that it undertook in May 2016 That search resulted in links to the Complainant among its top results However the Panel assumes that the Complainant undertook that search from a location in

prominent reviews from both Google and Facebook and that Complainant recently conducted a question and answer session with MoneyCrasher.com a website devoted to personal finance Complainant alleges that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly