there were no more than a few Google search results for dynamerse Although the Complainant registered DYNAMERSE as a trademark shortly before bringing this action it has no real trademark rights in the name The DYNAMERSE mark is being disputed by

as keywords for the Google search engine and Google AdWords This indicates that the Respondent deliberately misleads Internet users The Complainant sent a cease and desist letter but there was no response The Respondent copied the

Invest s.r.o � A search using Google on the term raido produces results that are not associated with either party A search on r raido produces results not related to either party A search on raido cryptocurrency produces several results related to

had carried only a basic Google search in respect of the wordings BOUYGUES CONSTRUCTION the same would have led the Respondent to all obvious references to the Complainant The disputed domain name is not used for any bona fide offerings This

as a keyword for the Google search engine and Google AdWords in addition to the advertisements being targeted to US customers where the Complainant s trade mark is registered The Complainant advises that no answer was provided by the

Apps 2 085 833 Companies 0 Google Play 5 238 566 Kuwait MOCI 2021-08-18 190 956 Steam 21 776 That search locates the trademark KW MOCI 2019 000856 in class 35 as registered and shows an application date of February 2 2019 This is precisely

searched for novairtis in the Google search engine the returned results either suggested Novartis or were irrelevant when searched for novairtis in combination with the Respondent s name Debra McCann or with Mercantile London Ltd there was no

Novartis-solutions in the Google search engine the returned results all pointed to the Complainant and its business activities The Respondent could have easily performed a similar search before registering the Disputed Domain Name and would

is not a legitimate use Google Inc v Markus Weiler Francotel Francophone Telecom WIPO Case No D2011-0921 There is no evidence in these Policy proceedings that the Complainant has authorised licensed or permitted the Respondent to register or

headings including Map Data Google Maps for Routing and Road Map Planning The Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to the disputed domain name registrant via the listed privacy service on April 29 2021 asking it to cease use of the disputed

Name is registered with Google LLC the Registrar 3 Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center the Center on October 28 2021 On October 28 2021 the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a

simple online search e.g via Google or Baidu for the term Geico would have revealed that it is a world-renowned brand The Respondent has provided no evidence to justify its registration of the disputed domain name Given the foregoing it would be

domain names A simple Google search on the trademarks INTESA and INTESA SANPAOLO would have revealed that they all belong to the Complainant Therefore it is more than likely that the Respondent would not have registered the disputed domain

had carried even a basic Google search in respect of the wordings INTESA SANPAOLO and INTESA the same would have yielded obvious references to the Complainant The Complainant submitted an extract of a Google search in support of its allegation

under the Policy see also 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

with Complainant � See also 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

Policy �4 c iii see also 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

personal information 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

індексу� ться Google раніше ніж спірне доменне ім я �'ідповідач не ма� жодних прав на використання позначення flower щодо послуг 39 класу

search engines such as Google list the Complainant s brand services as the first result The Complainant submits that the Respondent has clearly registered the disputed domain name to target the Complainant s brand intentionally It says that