est enregistré auprès de Google LLC ci-après désigné l Unité d enregistrement 3 Rappel de la procédure Une plainte en anglais a été déposée par l Association des Centres Distributeurs E Leclerc ACD Lec auprès du Centre d arbitrage et

the terms PENTAIR in the Google search engine the returned results point to Pentair s Group and its business activity The Respondent could easily perform a similar search before registering the Disputed Domain Name and would have quickly

the term Instagram into Google s search engine available at www.google.com and www.google.ae exclusively refer to the Complainant The Complainant further submits that the Respondent has previously targeted third party trademarks through

to other products and Google Analytics data shows that the Complainant s Link Engine Management products do not show up in the top results for traffic to the Respondent s website There is considerable force in the Respondent s point based

made in bad faith Moreover a Google search to Agfa Medical immediately shows the known trademark of the Complainant Finally the Complainant alleges that the Respondent has selected its reputed trademark AGFA to draw the impression that it is

To date results on Google for the term G4S lists the Complainant s brand and services as the first results a cease and desist letter was sent by the Complainant s representatives on August 6 2020 The Respondent chose not to respond The

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 trade mark and the Complainant has been established As such the Respondent

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 in an annex to the Complaint an extract of a Google search

Respondent had carried out a Google search for the word MYM the search results would have yielded immediate and obvious references to the Complainant The Complainant submits that it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent either knew or should

have shown that a Google search targeting the keyword amissima provides results only linked to the Complainants The Respondent is an Italian citizen It is therefore likely that at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name

Respondent performed a simple Google search for any of the terms University of Phoenix UOPX and/or UOP it would have been presented with numerous search results relating to Complainant and the existence of Complainant s rights True and correct

Complainants verification of Google and Baidu search engines did not allow us to find any element that would suggest that the Respondent could be known by We health or Wehealth The search results are provided as an Annex The Complainants performed

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

as Complainant and in Google searches is ranked higher than Complainant's website which shows the disputed domain name is used to divert potential customers away from Complainant   Respondent argues Respondent has rights and legitimate

millions of hits in a Google search and Complainant is not even on the first five pages of results Further there are over 2588 domain names registered that use the PEOPLES BANK mark In leaving out this information Complainant attempts to

such as the Apple Store and Google Play In addition to its main website the Complainant has also registered several domain names which feature the FXCM trademark with various generic Top-Level Domains gTLDs and country code Top-Level Domains

faith It asserts that i the Google results for the terms FR BOLLORE ENERGY refers to the Complainant and its subsidiary BOLLORE ENERGY ii the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its distinctive trade mark and the Respondent must have

had carried even a basic Google search in respect of the wordings INTESA and INTESA SANPAOLO the same would have yielded obvious references to the Complainant The Complainant submitted an extract of a Google search in support of its allegation

a website which is blocked by Google Safe Browsing The website states that Google Safe Browsing has recently detected phishing activity on aggiornamenti-intesasanpaolo.com   PARTIES CONTENTIONS COMPLAINANT The Complainant contends that the

under Policy ¶ 4 a iii   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