Paragraph 4 b iv see also Google Inc v Sergey Gridasov FA0474816 Nat Arb Forum July 5 2005 concluding that Respondent s registration and use of the disputed domain names to expose Internet users to malicious software constitutes evidence of bad

L Rev 1814 1825 Dec 2011 Google Ngram permits statistical analysis of the frequency of use of specific words and phrases Authors Guild Inc v Google Inc 954 F Supp 2d 282 287-88 S.D.N.Y 2013 discussing data mining uses of Google Books database

Paragraph 4 b iv see also Google Inc v Sergey Gridasov FA0474816 Nat Arb Forum July 5 2005 concluding that Respondent s registration and use of the disputed domain names to expose Internet users to malicious software constitutes evidence of bad

Google Inc v Idan Feigenbaum / SpeedBit Ltd Claim Number FA1603001666993 PARTIES Complainant is Google Inc Complainant represented by Melissa Alcantara of Dickinson Wright PLLC California United States of America Respondent is Idan

bad faith under the UDRP See Google Inc v wwwgoogle.com D2000-1240 WIPO Nov 9 2000 finding Respondent s false representation that its domain name did not infringe the rights of any third party as proof of bad faith Further the failure to make

betting and games of chance Google Translate offers the interpretation pools The Complainant says that the word is an invented word In its supplemental filing it says that betting and games of chance in Finnish were known as tippaus before the

Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See Google Inc v Petrovich FA 1339345 Nat Arb Forum Sept 23 2010 finding that disputed domain names which distribute malware to Internet users computers demonstrated a respondent s bad faith see also Connections Academy

the Complainant s searches on Google the Respondent owns over 3633 domain names most of which are characterized as pointed to undeveloped websites The Complainant also asserts that the Respondent does not appear to be known as anything other than

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Google Inc v Sajad Amirzadegan Case No DIR2016-0009 1 The Parties The Complainant is Google Inc of Mountain View California United States of America represented by Rouse and Co International United Arab Emirates The

invites Internet users to a Google HangOut where Respondent asks users to provide sensitive personal or financial information This is further evidence of bad faith under Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See Qatalyst Partners LP v Devimore FA 1393436 Nat

Twitter Instagram and Google The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights In particular the Complainant states that the disputed

had carried out a basic Google search on INTESA SANPAOLO this would have yielded obvious references to the Complainant the Domain Names are not used for any bona fide offering of goods or services since they are not connected to a website the

5 www facebook org net biz cn google baidu 6 2 0 4 16 3

arla or arla foods in the Google search engine the top returned results point to the Complainant and its products The Respondent could easily have performed a similar search before registering the Domain Name or through the Australian Trademark

to indicate otherwise See Google Inc v Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp FA1502001605239 Forum March 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

de búsqueda obtenidos en Google Capturas de pantalla de la página previamente vinculada al nombre de dominio en disputa provenientes de los Archivos del Internet Copia de la carta de requerimiento remitida por la Reclamante al Titular Copias

de búsqueda obtenidos en Google Capturas de pantalla de la página previamente vinculada al nombre de dominio en disputa provenientes de los Archivos del Internet Copias de las búsquedas actuales o históricas efectuadas en la base de datos

redirects Internet users to Google webpage 5 Parties Contentions A Complainant The Complainant asserts that it is the official entity in charge of licensing the character Muumi created in 1945 by Ms Tove Jansson The characters have been known as

is identical to a mark see Google Inc v DktBot.org FA 286993 Nat Arb 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

has been invited to conduct a Google search using the name of the Complainant hotel complex Palais Stephanie and from the results of that search supported by the fact that the Complainant website has an English language version the Panel would have