profiles named GL ELETRO A Google search for the expression GL Eletro does not point on the first pages to any GL ELETRO websites but only to side references to the Complainant s products or tradename in third parties websites Actually neither

s customers and that Google promptly stopped the illicit activity carried out by the Respondent Procedural Factors The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be

¶ 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

name on any other ground 9 Google search results all point to the Complainant and its business activities Thus the Respondent could easily have discovered before registering the disputed domain name that the Complainant had been using its

for Novartic careers in the Google search engine the search engine always suggested first Novartis careers and returned numerous results about the Complainant and its business activities The Respondent could have easily performed a similar search

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

la OMPI DECISIà N DEL EXPERTO Google LLC c Francisco Antonio Martínez Tello Caso No DES2021-0006 1 Las Partes La Demandante es Google LLC Estados Unidos de América representada por Carlos Polo y Asociados España El Demandado es Francisco Antonio

is registered with Google LLC the Second Registrar 3 Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center the Center on February 26 2021 On February 26 2021 the Center transmitted by email to the

In addition a basic Google search reveals that the content of the reviews seems to have been extracted selectively and out of context from reviews on third-party websites The Respondent did not provide evidence showing that independent

000 reviews and 4.4 rating On Google Play the Complainant s App has over 523 000 reviews and a 4.4 rating overall The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the trademark SRIBD in which the Complainant has

which are a screenshot of the Google autocomplete i.e the terms suggested by Google when searching for the terms sol and verde written separately on the one hand side and a Google search for the terms sol and verde written again separately on the

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

Complainant's mark See e.g Google LLC v Robert Stabile FA 1926977 Forum Feb 15 2021 finding hdyoutubedownloaderfree.com confusingly similar to YOUTUBE Google LLC v Rahul Kukreja FA 1926984 Forum Feb 5 2021 finding youtube-video-converter.net

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

on May 5 2021   On May 5 2021 Google LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the statefarmcommercial.com domain name is registered with Google LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name Google LLC has verified that Respondent

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

appear prominently on Google searches for the term Kinetik sports whereas the Complainant does not feature The disputed domain name was neither registered nor used in bad faith On the contrary the parties had a prior business relationship

average 250 clicks daily on Google search It says the STARGAMES brand has also generated almost 100 000 impressions in Google throughout the year 2020 with more than 90 000 clicks The Complainant says the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly

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

in the world with a Google search for the phrase Rockstar Games performed on March 3 2021 resulting in 14 200 000 hits Beginning in 1999 the Complainant through its Rockstar Games subsidiary has continuously and prominently used the