the term a search on the Google search engine revels that Qentura is the name of a biblical figure and is still used today as a personal moniker Because QENTURA is not a fanciful or arbitrary mark and because there is no evidence that

banners and a link to a Google Chrome extension for download The website also included a tutorial on how to download such videos which displayed a modified version of the Complainant s logo The website contained no disclaimer that it was not

ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION   Google LLC v Radu Gabriel Claim Number FA2107001957472   PARTIES Complainant is Google LLC Complainant represented by Matthew J Snider of Dickinson Wright PLLC Michigan USA.  Respondent is Radu Gabriel Respondent

mark it incorporates.  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

MORGAN STANLEY because i a Google search for webpages that contain both the terms Morgan Stanley and MS yielded over 5 million results ii Complainant's stock has been publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol MS for

and of the commonality of the Google Analytics Tracking ID of a number of the disputed domain names Using this range of information the Complainant has sought to demonstrate first the natural grouping of clusters of the disputed domain names and

WIPO Case No D2004-0962 Google Inc v Nijat Hassanov WIPO Case No D2011-1054 Accordingly the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4 a i of the Policy B Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel further

known by that name 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

of Complainant see also Google Inc v Ahmed Humood FA 1591796 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 Complainant's

per Policy ¶ 4 a iii   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

under Policy ¶ 4 a iii See 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

SmartScreen service and Google s Safe Browsing service reports that the Domain Name is unsafe and the Complainant has a reasonable belief that it has been or is being used for potentially criminal purposes In addition to its registered rights

and used in bad faith Google s Safe Browsing service reports that the Domain Name is unsafe and the Complainant believes that it has been or is being used for potentially criminal purposes In addition to its registered rights the

for Novartissales in the Google search engine the search engine returned numerous results about the Complainant and its business activities The Respondent could have easily performed a similar search before registering the Disputed Domain Name

23 2021   On July 23 2021 Google LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the arrisupdates.com domain name is registered with Google LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Google LLC has verified that Respondent is

bad faith A simple search via Google or any search engine would have result with the Complainant s products or news Furthermore the Respondent registered domain names through a privacy shield service to hide his identity and contact details thus

is registered with Google LLC the Registrar 3 Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center the Center on June 15 2021 On June 15 2021 the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request

is currently blocked by Google Safe Browsing because of the suspected phishing activity On October 19 2020 the Complainant s attorneys sent to the Respondent a cease and desist letter asking for the voluntary transfer of the domain name at

of Complainant 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

  The Panel's research using Google Translate shows the PinYin equivalents as the personal name Guo Dan and the address Wujialiang Village Ganzi Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture Sichuan Province which does not provide any indication that Respondent