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 February 1 2021 On February 1 2021 the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a

Background A search in Google shows that the Complainant FrieslandCampina Nederland B.V operates a dairy producer and distributor which offers cream and butter products for infant nutrition food industries and pharmaceutical sectors It is

under Policy ¶ 4 b iii Citing Google LLC v Raj Bansal FA1912001875857 Forum Jan 16 2020 finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4 a iii where the googlewifilogin.com domain name was used in an attempt to distribute malware   Complainant again refers to

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

name The first results for Google searches against this name all relate to the Complainant The factual background set out above demonstrates that the disputed domain name can only have been registered for the purpose of sale to the Complainant

the terms Novartisusa in the Google search engine the returned results point to the Complainant and its business activities According to the Complainant the Respondent could have easily performed a similar search before registering the disputed

suffix GPAY which refers to Google s well-known Google Pay payment service could mislead customers to wrongly believe that the disputed domain name is used to operate an online banking and/or payment website for Complainant s customers Given all

¶ 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

than 500 million users in Google Play and is ranked as 1 in Entertainment in the Apple Store and 3 in Social on Amazon The Complainant s official website is located at the domain name tiktok.com The Complainant is the owner of the following

a respondent makes of it 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

¶ 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

as Facebook Youtube Instagram Google and Twitter 5.1 A The Domain Name is identical or similar to a name which is legally recognized in Sweden and to which the Petitioner can prove its rights The Petitioner is the owner of several European

using a browser such as Google Chrome the visitor is warned that the site accessed is misleading or malicious 5 Parties Contentions A Complainant The Complainant makes the following contentions i that the Domain Name is identical or

to a safety warning from Google Cease and desist letters were sent to the Respondent by email in September and October 2020 to request the transfer of the disputed domain names to the Complainant They remained unanswered 5 Parties Contentions

to a safety warning from Google Cease and desist letters were sent to the Respondent by email in September and October 2020 to request the transfer of the disputed domain names to the Complainant They remained unanswered 5 Parties Contentions

to a safety warning from Google Cease and desist letters were sent to the Respondent by email in September and October 2020 to request the transfer of the disputed domain names to the Complainant They remained unanswered 5 Parties Contentions

to a safety warning from Google Cease and desist letters were sent to the Respondent by email in September and October 2020 to request the transfer of the disputed domain names to the Complainant They remained unanswered 5 Parties Contentions

to a safety warning from Google Cease and desist letters were sent to the Respondent by email in September and October 2020 to request the transfer of the disputed domain names to the Complainant They remained unanswered 5 Parties Contentions

as may be confirmed by Google searches A previous case under the Policy has found that the Complainant s said mark is widely known and does not have any meaning in commerce other than to refer to the Complainant s trademarks The disputed

Complainant has submitted a Google search on the expression studiocanale with several results related to the Complainant and it stated that before this registration the Respondent could have done a simple Google search and would have found the