a mark under the Policy See Google Inc v N/A/ k gautam FA 1524232 Nat Arb Forum Nov 18 2013 finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the at-issue mark despite the misspelling of the mark by omitting letters the addition of

Respondent s description in Google.pl uses its business name at first place and indicates that it acts as the reseller of inter alia ceramic tiles Moreover the Respondent uses its own corporate logo on its website and provides its full contact

Policy Paragraph 4 a i See Google Inc v Private Person / Andrey Skorodubov FA 1506184 Nat Arb Forum Jul 28 2013 finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the complainants mark regardless of the omission of a letter and

4 an electronic copy of a Google Analytics report for the domain name air ‘optic.com for the period February 25 through March 27 2014 indicating inter alia 37 visits and 24 unique visitors during this period and 5 a copy of an email message

Complainant s marks A simple Google search reveals Complainant s use of these marks despite Respondent s suggestion to the contrary This Panel is convinced of Respondent s actual bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain names under

is another word b A Google search for the term bfmarlboro yields no results related to Complainant 2 Respondent has legitimate interests in the disputed domain name a Respondent registered and intends to use the bfmarlboro.com domain name

Al introducir en el buscador Google el término Infra se obtuvieron aproximadamente 478000 resultados la totalidad de los analizados hacen referencia a la marca del Promovente lo que muestra que Grupo Infra es sin duda una marca notoria y

had performed a simple Google search for the term EMERSON NETWORK POWER it would find links to a number of Complainant s websites See Complainant s Exhibit G Consequently the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of the mark and

sustentado en las marcas GOOGLE y GOOGLE GLASS de la Demandante supone una identidad o similitud susceptible de producir confusión B Derechos o intereses legítimos La Demandante ha demostrado un uso efectivo de sus marcas GOOGLE Y GOOGLE

website that appears to show Google search results that include links to sites making unauthorized resales of Marlboro coupons in addition to a link to Complainant s website Complainant alleges that Respondent established this website in an

s website because of the high Google ranking that Complainant s webzilla.com website has gained Although panels have not generally found constructive notice on its own to support a finding of bad faith the Panel finds that Respondent had actual

Paragraph 4 b iv see also Google Inc v Petrovich FA 1339345 Nat Arb 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

always been auto-generated by Google and are constantly changing based on Google s algorithm keyword advertising inventory and user search behavior Additionally Respondent claims to have personally removed references to Complainant and its

WIPO Case No D2004-0962 Google Inc v Nijat Hassanov WIPO Case No D2011-1054 In view of the above the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has met the requirements under paragraph 4 a i of the Policy B Rights or Legitimate Interests The

Policy Paragraph 4 a i See Google Inc v N/A/ k gautam FA 1524232 Nat Arb Forum Nov 18 2013 finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the at-issue mark despite the misspelling of the mark by omitting letters the addition of

that performing a simple Google search for the term TD WATERHOUSE shows links to Complainant s websites and numerous articles from publications See Complainant s Exhibit H Although previous panels have found that constructive notice of a mark

the disputed domain names and Google searches corresponding to those names FINDINGS Complainant is a company based in the United States that provides financial investment services to clients throughout the world Complainant owns service mark

has evidenced through its Google historical search and the Respondent has no counter-statement that even in 2005 the Complainant was already a known Asian bookmaker The trademark SBOBET is a coined word which refers to Sports Bookie Online Bet

by the Ad choice program from Google Inc Respondent automatically receives fees and commissions for these advertisements Due to the amount of advertisements the content on the websites related to Complainant and the prominent use of the trademark

been also confirmed by the Google Safe Browsing Report which has put down the disputed domain name because of its phishing activity As it was stated in many previous WIPO UDRP decisions Use of a disputed domain name for the purpose of defrauding