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 submits an extract of a Google search in support of its allegation

the Domain Name A search in Google of the term westpac shows how the results essentially refer to Complainant and its activities Given the association between Complainant and westpac it is more than likely that Internet users will associate the

name resolves currently to a Google warning page stating Deceptive site ahead and labeling the site as unsafe 5 Parties Contentions A Complainant The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademarks in

date of the Complaint to a Google warning page stating Deceptive site ahead containing among others a hyperlink stating if you understand the risks to your security visit this unsafe site At the time of the decision the disputed domain name does

word sodexo on the Baidu and Google search engines direct Internet users to the Complainant and its services which indicates that an exclusive connection between the SODEXO mark and the Complainant has been established As such the Respondent

Exhibit 13 is a screenshot of Google Maps stating that it cannot find the address listed by the registrar for the registrant.� Paragraph 4 j of the the Policy provides for portions of a decision to be redacted in a proper case.� Forum Supplemental

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 As such the Respondent

advertisements utilising the Google AdSense program on a PPC basis UDRP panels have found that use of a domain name to host a parked page comprising PPC links does not represent a bona fide offering where such links compete with or capitalise on

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 April 21 2021 On April 21 2021 the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a

titles The Panel conducted a Google search against a sample of two of the comments included on the Respondent s website which purported to have been made by Customer Services Operator Former Employee and Warehouse Operative Former Employee

known by a 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

Case No D2001-0267 A mere Google search for the Domain Name minus the TLD reveals results exclusively relating to the Complainant The Complainant s trade mark is well-known and highly specific to the Complainant As such the Respondent can be

conducted two searches on Google the first search being for the words DFO and COMMERCE and a second search being for the Complainant s full mark DFO GLOBAL PERFORMANCE COMMERCE The top-ranked result produced by the first search is for the

20 2021 � On April 26 2021 Google LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the srsdistributions.com and srsdistribution.app domain names are registered with Google LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names.� Google LLC has

site www.iaa.se are listed at Google s parked domain site According to Google s policy only generic domain names may be listed at a parked domain site As the disputed domain name is listed on this site it is clear that is considered to be generic

in Jordan are named Zohoor A Google search for زهور only returns images of flowers A Google search for zohoor mainly returns results for the Complainant due to search engine optimization but there are many other references to Zohoor on the

In this sense by a quick Google search on the letters dpd the first result shown is DPDgroup International Services official website followed by a Wikipedia page on the Complainant s business The Panel notes that the disputed domain name

qu une rapide recherche sur Google ou dans la base de données des marques française aurait immédiatement révélé ses droits Le Requérant argue que le nom de domaine litigieux est exploité de mauvaise foi car il dirige vers un site Web le

a quick trade mark or Google search would have revealed to the Respondent the existence of the Complainant and its famous mark And the Respondent was obliged by the Policy to make enquiries of that sort.2 The Domain Name was clearly

offering a third-party Google Chrome extension for download By doing so the Respondent has attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant s FB trademark B