among the top results of a Google search for velpeau whereas the Complainants appear lower down in the search results Second velpeau has a defined meaning and was not coined by the Complainants The Respondent had a legitimate reason to register

s mark through a simple Google search or search of trademark filings Further the Respondent failed to submit a response and any good faith use is implausible The Complainant asserts the only reason the Respondent registered the disputed

Complainant s trademark s via Google yields results only related to the Complainant According to the Complainant the Respondent therefore knew or should have known that when registering and using the domain name he would do so in violation of the

� 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

FORUM � � DECISION � Google LLC v Fayva / J Fink Ivana / Mark Kei / Home Claim Number FA2011001921798 � PARTIES Complainant is Google LLC Complainant represented by Matthew J Snider of Dickinson Wright PLLC Michigan USA Respondent is Fayva

adds the letter �i see also Google Inc v Tobec Acquisitions FA 1296156 Forum Jan 15 2010 finding that the addition of a gTLD whether it be com net biz info or org is insufficient to adequately distinguish the disputed domain name from the

A Complainant Since the GOOGLE name was created in 1997 the GOOGLE search engine has become one of the most highly recognized and widely used Internet search services in the world � Complainant holds a registration for the GOOGLE service mark

19 2005 The Panel conducted a Google search from Australia of the term blaige on December 21 2020 The first ten results all related to the Complainant The Respondent is Kevin F Ford an individual of United Kingdom No response was received from the

faith per Policy � 4 b iv 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 see also Wells Fargo

16 2020 � On November 17 2020 Google LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the morgansfanley.com domain name is registered with Google LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.� Google LLC has verified that Respondent is

for Novartis and int in the Google search engine the returned results pointed to the Complainant and its business activities The Respondent could have easily performed a similar search before registering the Disputed Domain Name and would have

demonstrates bad faith See Google Inc v Domain Admin FA 1502001605239 Forum Mar 22 2015 finding that use of a disputed domain name to aid illegal activities under Complainant's trademark indicates Respondent's bad faith � As such the Panelist

� 4 b iii and otherwise See Google LLC v Domain Manager FA 1755084 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

a través del buscador Google y la gran mayoría de las referencias que se recuperan se refieren al servicio que presta la Demandante No resulta plausible considerando tanto la composición del nombre de dominio en disputa que es idéntico a

la OMPI DECISI� N DEL EXPERTO Google LLC c Serafín Frías Cuevas Caso No DES2020-0037 1 Las Partes La Demandante es Google LLC Estados Unidos de América Estados Unidos representada por Carlos Polo y Asociados España El Demandado es Serafín

any event a simple search via Google or any other search engine using the keyword michelin demonstrates that all initial results relate to the Complainant s products or news The Respondent could not have chosen the Domain Name for any reason other

mark CANAL PLUS ii all the Google results for the terms CANAL PLUS VPN refer to the Complainant and the Respondent could not have been unaware of the Complainant s CANAL PLUS trade marks when it registered the disputed domain name iii the

under Policy � 4 c iii See Google Inc v Onur Koycegiz FA1741705 Forum Aug 25 2017 finding that respondent's use of the domain name in association with a website that enabled Internet users to download and save content from Google's YouTube

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

системы Google 5 � оводы сторон A Заявитель Заявитель считает что спорное доменное имя идентично с его товарным знаком Общий домен