million copies worldwide A Google search conducted on March 15 2021 for the phrase Rockstar Games garnered 83 600 000 hits The ROCKSTAR Marks are also used on other goods and services such as magazines guides animated films music publishing

million copies worldwide A Google search conducted on March 11 2021 for the phrase Rockstar Games garnered 77 200 000 hits The ROCKSTAR Marks are also used on other goods and services such as magazines guides animated films music publishing

million copies worldwide A Google search conducted on March 3 2021 for the phrase Rockstar Games garnered 14 200 000 hits The ROCKSTAR Marks are also used on other goods and services such as magazines guides animated films music publishing

on April 6 2021 The Google Safe Browsing service currently reports that the disputed domain name is unsafe in that it contains harmful content including pages trying to trick visitors into sharing personal information or downloading

� 4 c ii � See for example Google LLC v Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus FA 1799694 Forum September 4 2018 concluding that a respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name incorporating the GOOGLE mark where the relevant WHOIS

been disabled Previously the Google Safe Browsing service had reported that the disputed domain name was unsafe in that it contained harmful content including pages trying to trick visitors into sharing personal information or downloading software

ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION � Google LLC v A M Claim Number FA2105001943916 � PARTIES Complainant is Google LLC Complainant represented by Matthew J Snider of Dickinson Wright PLLC Michigan USA.� Respondent is A M Respondent AE � REGISTRAR AND

similar to Complainant's GOOGLE mark as they are misspellings of Complainant's GOOGLE mark.� Respondent's� googlescholar.co domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's GOOGLE SCHOLAR mark as it infringes the GOOGLE SCHOLAR mark.�

and the Domain Name Also a Google search with the term sodesox gives results related to SODEXO The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name The Respondent is not and has never been commonly known by the Domain Name

related to its mark • All Google results for the terms FRONTLINE with DOG relate to the Complainant s products a screenshot is adduced in support of this contention • It is inconceivable that the Respondent chose to register the disputed

evidence of bad faith �See Google Inc v Petrovich FA 1339345 Forum Sept 23 2010 finding that disputed domain names which distribute malware to Internet users computers demonstrate Respondent's bad faith under Policy � 4 b iv �Accordingly the

per Policy � 4 a iii �See Google LLC v Domain Manager FA1755084 Forum�Jan 18 2018 finding use of the listentoyoutube.com domain name in association with a website that enabled download of content from Google's YouTube website in violation of

� FINDINGS Complainant is Google LLC Complainant of Mountain View CA USA Complainant was established in 1997 and has offered a broad array of technological products and services since that time under its GOOGLE mark Google is also the owner of

from the App Store and Google Play under the MYCHART name Complainant has both common-law and registered rights in the MYCHART mark Complainant has invested substantial resources in promoting its MYCHART mark and the service has received

opportunistic bad faith Google LLC v Noboru Maruyama / Personal FA 2001001879162 Forum Mar 3 2020 the registration and use of domain name that is confusingly similar to a trademark with which the respondent has no connection has frequently

are registered with Google LLC the Registrar 3 Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center the Center on April 12 2021 On April 13 2021 the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a

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 This raises a clear inference of knowledge of the Complainant s trademark on the

advertisements provided by Google's advertising network displayed on Respondent's website This demonstrates use in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain under Policy � 4 b iv � Complainant has established this element � DECISION Having

with the mark's owner 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

buscadores de Internet como google y tampoco dispone de signos distintivos sobre el término elecnor en las bases de datos de marcas Además tal y como manifiesta la Demandante no existe licencia o autorización de uso de las marcas de la