motores de búsqueda Google todos los resultados incluidos en las primeras páginas están relacionados con la Demandante siendo éste otro hecho que demuestra el renombre de que goza la marca GEDESCO y concluye que el Nombre de Dominio es

motores de búsqueda Google todos los resultados incluidos en las primeras páginas están relacionados con la Demandante siendo éste otro hecho que demuestra el renombre de que goza la marca GEDESCO y concluye que el Nombre de Dominio es

or terms are attached See Google Inc v Xtraplus Corp D2001-0125 WIPO Apr 16 2001 finding that the respondent s domain names were confusingly similar to Complainant s GOOGLE mark where the respondent merely added common terms such as buy or gear

nature through the use of Google searches as well as other uses of the term in association with beef on the Internet The Panel therefore finds that Respondent can establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to

is the first result on Google for russell stover Therefore the Panel is persuaded that the Respondent was or should have been aware of the reputation and business of Russell Stover a subsidiary of the Complainant when he acquired the Domain

had carried even a basic Google search in respect of the wording INTESA SANPAOLO the same would have yielded obvious references to the Complainant The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name resolves to a website with links to

has produced a statement from Google that his estimated earnings from Google AdSense advertisements have totalled USD 35.90 over the past three years Whilst this is a small sum nevertheless it may reasonably be concluded that at least some visitors

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 s international registrations include

and adding the com gTLD See Google Inc v Jon G FA 106084 Nat Arb 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

term DIAMONDTRUST into a Google search engine it was unable to see in the first few pages of results any reference that obviously related to the Complainant or its businesses While this result is merely indicative and does not necessarily

and Billiton Plc A search on Google revealed only references to the Complainant It would be inconceivable that the Respondent had no knowledge and actual notice of the Trade Mark when the Domain Name was registered The Panel concludes that the

show up in the most logical Google search in which the names might be returned horseshoe casino 2 Caesars its employees and customers thus would not logically have been expected to discover the Domain Names Accordingly the record is devoid of any

the Domain Name A simple Google search yields numerous links to websites virtually all of which provide information or content directly related to Complainant Sayana Press product and many of which pre-date the December 2014 registration date

since 2004 through a Google search As far as the Complainant's contentions are concerned the Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark Furthermore the Respondent has no rights or legitimate

has exhibited a current Google search presumably carried out in the US for the word hopscotch which shows as well as various entries relating to the children game called hopscotch numerous businesses and organisations using the word hopscotch

under ICANN Policy See e.g Google Inc v ROB LIE / ROB SMITH FA1507001631045 Nat Arb Forum Sept 2 2015 Univision Communications Inc v Domains By Proxy NA Proxy Account / Niche Domain Proxy Manager FA1201001422592 Nat Arb Forum Feb 7 2012 iii

submitted the results for a Google search for the term Trongate 103 which all relate directly to the Complainant and its activities The Complainant further observes that it has a significant amount of followers who subscribe to updates about

are not visible in Google search results as claimed by the Respondent In any event the existence of the claimer cannot cure bad faith when bad faith has been established by other factors B Respondent The Respondent denies that the Domain

purposes having purchased Google advertising for the Respondent Website at an estimated cost of 600 a week and h the Respondent appears to be recruiting people to commence a class action claim against the Complainant but no such claim has been

disputed domain name See also Google Inc v Ryan G Foo / PPA Media Services FA 1625734 Forum Aug 10 2015 Past panels have found that a respondent s use of a disputed domain name to perpetrate a phishing scheme evidences that a respondent lacks