por la Demandante en Google utilizando el término Siteimprove Anexo 1 de la Demanda se desprende que la Demandada que figura inscrita como titular del Nombre de Dominio bajo el nombre de Annie Young no guarda conexión alguna con

is registered with Google Inc the Registrar 3 Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center the Center on June 16 2016 On June 17 2016 the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request

Google Inc v TOM NEUMANN Claim Number FA1606001680967 PARTIES Complainant is Google Inc Complainant represented by Matthew J Snider of Dickinson Wright PLLC Michigan United States Respondent is TOM NEUMANN Respondent New York United States

to be buried deep not only in Google search results but also within Complainant s own website and contends that Complainant s lack of use indicates that the phrase is not uniquely associated with Complainant Respondent suggests that Complainant has

advertising such as Google Adwords and as noted points to its educational or informational nature That is true so far as it goes However the website to which the disputed domain name resolves is plainly advertising or promoting the

Policy Paragraph 4 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

Respondent in May 2010 and Google search results under the search term solink 李继标 solink plus the name of the Respondent which suggest that there was some limited Internet activity conducted in relation to the disputed domain name even if

Policy Paragraph 4 b iv See Google Inc v Bassano FA 232958 Forum Mar 8 2004 holding that the respondent s use of the googlesex.info domain name to intentionally attract Internet users to a website featuring adult-oriented content constituted bad

Foods are searched for on Google the results point only to the Complainant and its business activity There is no evidence that the Respondent has a history of using or preparing to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide

When entering the term in Google the returned results points to the Complainant and its business activity The Respondent could easily perform a similar search before registering the disputed domain name and would have learnt that the trademark

Complainant has used the GOOGLE mark since well before March 19 2011 the date that Respondent registered the googlereklamverme.com domain name Complainant owns registrations for the GOOGLE mark in jurisdictions around the world that were

the term Mila Moursi in Google the returned results all point to the Complainant and its products and services and to the Complainant s owner The Complainant also submits that the Respondent s webpage at www.milamoursi.com states that the

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

passing off by Respondent See Google Inc v Zharkov Maxim / Aleksey Lebedev FA1306001506108 Forum Sep 2 2013 Respondent attempts to pass himself off as Complainant This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy Paragraph 4 c i or

healthcare providers through Google Ads Bing Twitter LinkedIn Facebook and AdRoll Complainant also uses its CARESYNC mark in print/online advertising campaigns with the American Academy of Family Physicians and through third party distributors

register search or even a Google search prior to the registration of the Domain Name would have informed the Respondent of the existence of the Trade Marks Under these circumstances the Panel concludes that the Domain Name has been registered

in the instant case NIKE and GOOGLE However Google Inc has not been joined as a party and thus has not provided any information asserting rights in the GOOGLE mark in this proceeding In it s Complaint Complainant alleges NIKE files this UDRP

According to the Respondent a Google search on BAGLEY yields over 11 million results without the Complainant appearing in the first three pages of results In the present case the Panel does not consider it can go behind the Respondent denial of

Policy Paragraph 4 b iv See Google Inc v Bassano FA 232958 Forum Mar 8 2004 holding that the respondent s use of the googlesex.info domain name to intentionally attract Internet users to a website featuring adult-oriented content constituted bad

Paragraph4 c i and iii 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