publicitarias en AdWords de Google y otros medios durante todos estos años Se aporta diversa documentación acreditativa de estos extremos en particular un aval bancario otorgado en escritura pública a favor de la Demandante para la

lacked the letter s see also Google Inc v Jon G FA 106084 Forum Apr 26 2002 finding googel.com to be confusingly similar to the complainant s GOOGLE mark and noting that t he transposition of two letters does not create a distinct mark capable of

medición de tráfico Alexa y Google Trends el Demandado obtiene la mayor parte de sus ingresos publicitarios de las búsquedas que realizan los usuarios de Internet de los términos Telekino y Telekino Sorteo vii La conducta arriba descrita del

search for the term slized on Google and as a Google keyword 5.12 In support of the Respondent claim that he intended to use the Domain Name for his own business he attaches to the response a document he describes a plan for his business However

Thus the respondent had added Google Translate Button so that the panelist and the complainant can see translated Malay words in English Please visit http //boleh.co The slogan of tata.biz is Kaedah Mengaturkan Penyertaan Yang Paling Mudah which

Respondent made even a basic Google search in respect of the wording Intesa Sanpaolo the search would have yielded obvious references to Complainant as it can be shown in Annex G to the Complaint This raises a clear inference of knowledge of

they are directed to two Google drive login pages that redirect them to non-existent files when data is entered Panels have held that a respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests where it either uses a domain to operate a phishing scheme

Nat Arb Forum Nov 18 2000 Google Inc v DktBot.org FA 286993 Nat Arb Forum Aug 4 2004 iii In addition to an almost identical spelling Complainant s CABLEXPRESS® mark as used in its domain name www.cablexpress.com and Respondent s Peled Domain

identical to a mark see also 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

Policy Paragraph 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 Paragraph 4 b iv Additionally

Complaint Annex 8 Finally a Google search on Respondent turns up other duplicates of other websites from which the user is redirected to websites unconnected with the websites which have been duplicated Complaint Annex 9 5 Parties Contentions A

Benin 00229 BJ According to Google Maps the address Good Benin 00229 BJ does not exist Benin is not a city within the country of the Republic of Benin nor is 00229 a valid postal code for that country In addition upon sending a cease-and-desist

en el motor de búsqueda de Google todos los resultados obtenidos están directamente relacionados con la Demandante Que la marca INELAP ha sido íntegramente incluida en el nombre de dominio en disputa Que la Demandante cuenta con un gran

Panel notes that according to Google Translate ayak is Turkish for foot in English The nature of the use the Respondent is making of the term is not related in any way however to the foot or feet related activities The Panel also understands that

advertisement banner i.e Google Ads which generate income for the Respondent when viewed and/or clicked upon Unsuspecting users who visit the Website will be confused in thinking that it is connected affiliated or endorsed by the Complainant B

ALASKA AIRLINES mark see also 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

When searching intocable on Google every one of the 10 search results on the first page is a reference to Complainant There is a link to the band s website its entry in Wikipedia its Facebook page and links to numerous concert venues and ticket

of a complainant s rights 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

and services under its GOOGLE mark Google is the owner of numerous domestic and international registrations for its GOOGLE mark and variations thereon constituting the family of GOOGLE marks Google also is the owner of the marks CHROMECAST

en el motor de búsqueda de Google todos los resultados obtenidos están directamente relacionados con la Promovente Que ambos nombres de dominio en disputa incluyen a la marca INELAP la cual ha sido íntegramente incluida en dichos nombres de