the term galec in the Google search engine the results displayed on the two first pages are exclusively related to the Complainant company and to the Complainant name Galec There is no reasonable explanation for choosing a domain name

Complainant brand and that a Google search of the KIK word mark provides multiple results of Complainant KIK brand Complainant notes that to date there appears to be no evidence of Respondent use of or demonstrable preparation to use the Domain

any supporting evidence See Google Inc v Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp FA1502001605239 Forum Mar 22 2015 WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name lists Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp as the domain name s registrant and there is

as shown by the fact that a Google records show that Interbrand s Best Global Brands annual report has been cited 22 times on www.cnn.com between 2003 and the present approximately 47 times on the New York Times website from as early as 2010

Paragraph 4 c i or iii See Google Inc v Alex Dori FA 1623672 Forum July 13 2015 Given that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to offer illegal content for download and streaming the Panel finds that Respondent s use of the disputed

Complainant s mark see also Google Inc v Felin Georges FA 1657796 Forum Feb 24 2016 The disputed domain name also adds the gTLD online which does not distinguish a disputed domain name under Policy Paragraph 4 a i Therefore the Panel agrees that

no brand results appeared on Google for the term DomainKing during the time of our domain registration So we had no knowledge of the complainant trademark 5.8 The Respondent maintains that he has used the name DomainKing for his business since

Policy Paragraph 4 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

includes screenshots of a Google �� search of the disputed domain The inactive holding of domain names without demonstrable preparations for use does not constitute rights or legitimate interests under Policy Paragraph Paragraph 4 c i and iii

similar to a mark In Google Inc v DktBot.org FA 286993 Forum Aug 4 2004 it was held that 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

of Policy Paragraph 4 a i See Google Inc v DktBot.org FA 286993 Forum Aug 4 2004 finding that the complainant had established rights in the GOOGLE mark through its holding of numerous trademark registrations around the world see also Expedia Inc v

A search for reseguiden on Google gives 614 000 search results 420 000 results for reseguide and 129 000 000 results for the English word travelguide The Complainant registered a device mark on February 6 2009 which is more than ten years after

mortgage company on the Google and Bing search engines Complainant is consistently the first search result listed that is not a paid-for advertisement Over 405 unsolicited reviews have been written about Complainant s services on websites

have also deleted myself from google search results 5 Parties Contentions A Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its RITALIN trademarks that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate

corporate indicator Inc the Google search engine defaults to searching for Cox Inc when coxiinc is entered as a search term and most relevant here Complainant has shown that its corporate website is www.coxinc.com The addition of a term to

of the Policy See e.g Google Inc v Felin Georges FA 1657796 Forum Feb 24 2016 finding adwordsgoogle.online confusingly similar to ADWORDS and GOOGLE Toronto-Dominion Bank v Whois Agent / Domain Whois Protection Service FA 1465013 Forum Dec

detrimental to this process Google Inc v Blue Arctic LLC NAF Claim No 1447355 Accordingly while i t may be that Complainant could develop evidence of lack of legitimate interest in a legal proceeding that would allow more evidentiary development

includes screenshots of a Google �� search of the disputed domain Panels have found the inactive holding of domain names without demonstrable preparations for use not to constitute rights or legitimate interests under Policy Paragraph Paragraph

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

automatically generated by Google and are constantly changing depending on the relevant algorithms There is extensive use of the term feet first by organisations relating to footwear and foot care including shoe stores podiatric services and