asserts that all the Google results of a search of the term PRADAXA refer to the Complainant s drug and adduced evidence of the Google results which shows the reference to the trademark made in the first webpage results The Panel considers

Internet search engines like Google.com the vast majority of the results relate to the Complainant s official websites or websites directly referring to the Complainant and career opportunities at the Complainant When searching for the name of the

s queries performed on Google search engine on valdoxan and coralan only brought up results concerning the Complainant s medicine on the first pages The Complainant performed verifications on WIPO s global brand database all the trademarks

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

to Policy ¶ 4 a i See Google LLC v Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus FA 1799694 Forum Sep 4 2018 Complainant has rights in the GMAIL mark based upon its registration of the mark with numerous trademark agencies around the world see also

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

under Policy ¶ 4 a iii 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 suggests Respondent's bad faith   Moreover the Panel finds

¶¶ 4 b iii and iv see also Google Inc v Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp FA1506001622862 Forum Aug 10 2015 finding that the respondent's apparent use of the disputed domain name in furtherance of a ‘phishing scheme further established its bad

had carried out even a basic Google search in respect of the wording BRICOFER the same would have yielded obvious references to the Complainant The Complainant submits an extract of a Google search in support of its allegation This raises a clear

demonstrating bad faith 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

May 19 2022   On May 20 2022 Google LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the katiemartinstatefarminsuranceagent.com domain name is registered with Google LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name Google LLC has verified

¶ 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

for All Novartis bio in the Google search engine the search results all pointed to the Complainant and its business activities 4 The Complainant contends that the Respondent obviously knew about the Complainant and its trademark NOVARTIS when it

mark under Policy ¶ 4 a i See Google LLC v Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus FA 1799694 Forum Sept 4 2018 Complainant has rights in the GMAIL mark based upon its registration of the mark with numerous trademark agencies around the world see also

c ii   See Google Inc v S S / Google International FA1506001625742 Forum Aug 4 2015 Respondent did identify itself as ‘Google International in connection with its registration of the Disputed Domain Name and this is reflected in the WHOIS

to Policy ¶ 4 c ii   See also 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 where nothing in the record showed that that respondent was

and English   On May 17 2022 Google LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the locatier.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 bound

and as the evidence of a Google search produced by the Complainant demonstrates this phrase signifies the Complainant s trademark alone while no other meanings or uses are indicated In these circumstances the Panel reasonably infers that the

Complainant if one conducts a Google search on NOVARTIS INDIA all the results returned by the search engine are related to the Complainant The Panel has also conducted a search on NOVARTIS INDIA LIMITED and even in this case all the results refer

purposes of Policy ¶ 4 a i   Google LLC v Hai Min Xu / Xu Hai Min / haimin xu FA 1779597 Forum May 3 2018 finding the opensourcegoogle.com domain name to be confusingly similar to the GOOGLE OPEN SOURCE mark as the domain name consists of the mark