word klarna on the Baidu and Google search engines direct Internet users to the Complainant and its services which indicates that an exclusive connection between the KLARNA mark and the Complainant has been established Klarna Bank AB v Contact

word klarna on the Baidu and Google search engines direct Internet users to the Complainant and its services which indicates that an exclusive connection between the KLARNA mark and the Complainant has been established Klarna Bank AB v Contact

the disputed domain name See Google LLC v Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus FA 1799694 Forum Sept 4 2018 concluding that Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the WHOIS of record identifies the Respondent as Bhawana

warning page provided by Google by clicking on it it resolves to an inactive website On February 8 2021 the Complainant s representative sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent followed by a reminder on March 1 2021 the Respondent did

May 27 2021   On May 28 2021 Google LLC Launchpad.com Inc confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the bofafraudunit.com and bofacybercrimes.com domain names are registered with Google LLC Launchpad.com Inc and that Respondent is the current

fully incorporate the famous GOOGLE Mark in its entirety and are therefore confusingly similar to the GOOGLE Mark   In another place Complainant submits that the domain names are identical and confusingly similar to Complainant's famous marks

virtually all top Google search results for the CANVA term pertain to the Complainant s offerings The Complainant further states that the Respondent s use of the Disputed Domain Name evidences that the Respondent was clearly aware of

of June 28 2021   Moreover a google search conducted on the term Course Hero produces numerous results all of which on at least the first ten pages of results reference or are about Complainant.  Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent must have

Under this regard a quick google search could have easily showed that INTESA is a trademark used by the Complainant iii the use of the word CASH combined with INTESA is without any reasonable explication by the Respondent an index that the

under the Policy See e.g Google LLC v Rekcah Uoy Era FA 1936420 Forum Apr 12 2021 finding lack of rights or interests where domain name incorporating complainant's mark was used for website displaying complainant's mark and logo and containing

domain names see also Google LLC v Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus FA 1799694 Forum Sept 4 2018 concluding that Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the WHOIS of record identifies the Respondent as Bhawana

search engines such as Google.com all the top results relate to the Complainant s it s official websites and also third parties websites directly referring to the Complainant When conducting the search by the name of the Respondent Dakhla

la OMPI DECISIà N DEL EXPERTO Google LLC c Franscisco Agustín Hernández Pérez Caso No DES2021-0005 1 Las Partes La Demandante es Google LLC Estados Unidos de América Estados Unidos representada por Carlos Polo y Asociados España El Demandado

unknown in Paris according to Google Map Search which demonstrates the fraudulent intention of the Respondent and proves a bad faith registration Finally the Complainant points out that the Respondent was using the disputed domain name only for

and KITE PHARMA A search on Google for the phone number listed in Respondent s contact information shows that the number has been reported as connected with a Royal Mail scam Respondent had constructive knowledge of Complainant s trademark and

est enregistré auprès de Google LLC ci-après désigné l Unité d enregistrement 3 Rappel de la procédure Une plainte en français a été déposée par Vente-privée.com auprès du Centre d arbitrage et de médiation de l Organisation

warning page provided by Google by clicking on it it resolves to an inactive website On April 12 2021 the Complainant s representative filled out the contact form on the Registrar s website in order to reach the Respondent and assert that the

on search engines like Google Yahoo and Bing show the predominance of the Complainant s association with its mark establishing its prior rights Enagic is also part of its corporate name and its rights in the mark have been recognized in

Respondent had carried out Google search for the names HID and HID GLOBAL the search results would have yielded immediate and obvious references to the Complainant It is therefore reasonable to infer that the Respondent either knew or should

the disputed domain name See Google LLC v Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus FA 1799694 Forum Sept 4 2018 concluding that Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the WHOIS of record identifies the Respondent as Bhawana