mark easily found in a simple Google search Therefore it is more than likely that the disputed domain name would not have been registered if it were not for Complainant s trademark This clearly suggests that the Respondent did register the disputed

8 When sihi is searched on Google s search engine the entire first page and most of the subsequent pages refers to Complainant s products 9 Respondent should have been aware of Complainant s rights in the SIHI trademark when it registered

languages and states that a Google search shows millions of sites containing bic as prefix suffix and infix The Respondent also contends to have used bic as abbreviation of its web site name buy it cheap store and points out that the disputed

Policy Paragraph 4 c ii 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

on May 16 2016 On May 17 2016 Google Inc confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the yetihandles.net yetihandle.net yeticuphandles.com and yeticuphandle.com domain names are registered with Google Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of

Google Inc v Tracy Tan Claim Number FA1605001676955 PARTIES Complainant is Google Inc Complainant represented by Melissa Alcantara of Dickinson Wright PLLC Washington D.C USA Respondent is Tracy Tan Respondent Singapore REGISTRAR AND

in the Turkish language as a Google Translate search proves Therefore it should be expected to lead to the virtual representation and website of LUFTHANSA and not to an obviously parking site It is impossible to imagine how the respondent should

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

¢ The first five pages of Google search results for Wawanesa all refer to Complainant demonstrating that when consumers are looking for Wawanesa they are seeking out Complainant See Google Search Wawanesa.pdf ¢ Complainant widely advertises its

presences on Twitter Facebook Google YouTube and LinkedIn According to the Complaint the Complainant has annual sales of AUD 5 million It sells its products throughout Australia and exports to the Russian Federation Dubai the Philippines Qatar

Hertz Special Offers and Get Google Chrome Complainant contends that Respondent receives a pay-per-click revenue in connection with the links Panels have found a respondent s use of a complainant s mark to operate a pay-per-click website

to the Complaint based on Google Translator offers vacuum cleaner repair services The products displayed on the print out of the web page included in the Complaint however appear to be AEG brand dishwashers The Respondent had also registered

from a registered mark 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

to download malware See Google Inc v Petrovich FA 1339345 FORUM September 23 2010 finding that disputed domain names which distribute malware to Internet users computers demonstrate Respondent s bad faith under Policy Paragraph 4 b iv While

registration and use See Google Inc v Petrovich FA 1339345 Forum Sept 23 2010 finding that disputed domain names which distribute malware to Internet users computers demonstrate Respondent s bad faith under Policy Paragraph 4 b iv Twitter Inc

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

from Complainant mark See e.g Google Inc v Google Reklam Ek B / Google Reklam FA 1602374 Forum Feb 25 2015 finding googlereklamekibi.com confusingly similar to GOOGLE The Panel finds that each of the disputed domain names is identical to a mark in

Complainant relies on its Google search results to show that the MERYL mark is well known and that that meaning trumps the otherwise well-known female name Meryl However the Google search relied upon is for the Meryl brand This provides a

uniks is recognized by the Google search algorithm as equivalent to the word eunuch but the Panel does not need to conclude whether that is correct 2 WIPO panels have found Reverse Domain Name Hijacking in circumstances including where the

Complainant researches on the Google Books Ngram Viewer show that the term Filinvest was associated with the Complainant predecessor activities in a Philippine public body 1975 yearbook and likewise in a USA Government Printing Office publication