submitted the results of a Google search which it says demonstrates that when a search for O2 is carried out all of the links relate to the Complainant The Complainant submits that it owns numerous trade mark registrations in the European Union

it provides the results of a Google search showing the Complainant's mark at the top of the search results It says that the disputed domain name is clearly identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's THE PINK SHEET mark The Complainant

from the original mark See Google Inc v DktBot.org FA 286993 Forum Aug 4 2004 The mere addition of a single letter to the complainant s mark does not remove the respondent s domain names from the realm of confusing similarity in relation to the

evidence bad faith use See Google Inc v Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp FA150400161605239 Forum Mar 22 2015 Respondent s use of the at-issue domain name to aid illegal activities under Complainant s trademark and thereby tarnish the GOOGLE

name B Respondent Other than Google AdSense the ged-ged.com domain name s resolving website does not have any direct commercial intent by way of links or redirecting users The disputed domain name s resolving website content was written several

including pest control A Google search of that name returns over a million results bringing up companies involved with water heaters light bulbs fireplaces pest reduction etc Complainant references to Disney and Microsoft are inappropriate

totality of circumstances 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 Complainant

des salaries Thus numerous Google search engines would display Agirc Arrco as a result of a search conducted on the keywords Arrco and Arcco and vi the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page displaying sponsored links related to the

for Eastpak in the Baidu and Google Internet search engines relate to the Complainant and its products The Respondent is not making a legitimate use of the disputed domain names B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's

4 Forum Nov 19 2003 See also Google Inc v Aloysius Thevarajah FA1295342 p 4 NAF Dec 31 2009 T he googleos.org domain name resolves to a parked website that features hyperlinks to third-parties unrelated to Complainant The Panel assumes that

his businesses as shown by a Google search Furthermore to Complainant's knowledge and belief the string Dr Jacob's is not registered as trademark in the name of any other party worldwide Complainant submits the Domain Name fully incorporates the

s investment services that a Google search of ken griffin citadel yields in excess of 293 000 results Even a Google search for ken c griffin alone yields results for at least the first nine pages that relate directly to his role as founder and CEO

to have been derived from a Google website The Complainant does not explain the approach which led to its receipt An oddity is that in neither currency the Colombian currency or its conversion by the Complainant into United States dollars is it a

of the Policy See for example Google Inc v DktBot.org FA 286993 Forum August 4 2004 The mere addition of a single letter to the complainant s mark does not remove the respondent s domain names from the realm of confusing similarity in relation to

to Policy Paragraph 4 c iii Google Inc v Pritam Singh / Pandaje Technical Services Pvt Ltd FA 1660771 Forum March 17 2016 agreeing that respondent has not shown any bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair

to Policy Paragraph 4 c iii Google Inc v Pritam Singh / Pandaje Technical Services Pvt Ltd FA 1660771 Forum March 17 2016 agreeing that respondent has not shown any bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair

and was visually similar and Google Inc v DktBot.org FA 286993 Forum Aug 4 2004 The mere addition of a single letter to the complainant s mark does not remove the respondent s domain names from the realm of confusing similarity in relation to the

of Policy Paragraph4 a i See Google Inc v DktBot.org FA 286993 Forum Aug 4 2004 The mere addition of a single letter to the complainant s mark does not remove the respondent s domain names from the realm of confusing similarity in relation to the

pas titulaire d une marque « GOOGLECTV » Il n y a pas de site web actif lié au nom de domaine Le défendeur ajoute « si Google Inc souhaite m'achetter le nom de domain googlectv.com et qu'il estime que ce nom de domain leur porte préjudice je

by undertaking a simple Google search The Complainant refers to the Respondent's website described above and states that this has also included links to YouTube videos promoting quick loan services and other online loan providers The