Name is registered with Google Inc the Registrar 3 Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center the Center on August 17 2015 naming WhoisProxy.com Ltd as the Respondent The Center transmitted its

address in Shanghai China A Google search showed no use of either Low Lintas QC or Lowe Lintas by the Respondent The Respondent s name address and email address have been used to register some 902 domain names according to a reverse WhoIs search

the context of the Policy e.g Google Inc v Namerental.com and Leonard Bensonoff WIPO Case No D2001-0060 Consequently the third and last element of paragraph 4 a of the Policy is also met 7 Decision For the foregoing reasons in accordance with

of confusing similarity See Google Inc v DktBot.org FA 286993 Nat Arb 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

the terms migros in the Google and Baidu search engines the top returned results point to the Complainant and its business The Respondent could easily have performed a similar search before registering the disputed domain name and would have

Şikayet Edilen'in Google arama motorunda mikro anahtar kelimesine Mikro Yazılım şeklinde reklamlar verdiğini ve MİKRO'ya ulaşmaya çalışan tüketicilerin algısında karışıklık yaratmak istediğine yer vermiştir Bu

notes that according to Google Maps the address 3085 rue Camus Terrebone J6Y 2A3 is a private residence in Terrebonne Quebec Canada Thus according to Complainant the address provided in the Whois has no connection with Hong Kong India or Iraq

currently ranks second in the Google rankings for steel buildings searches and third in metal buildings searches General Steel s main website www.gensteel.com receives approximately 50000 Unique Visitors each month · General Steel s name is

Paragraph4 a i analysis See Google Inc v DktBot.org FA 286993 Nat Arb 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

inclusions provided by Google on an automated basis The Respondent highlights that its trademark applications were filed for Marketing services namely providing informational web pages designed to generate sales traffic via hyperlinks to

some income generated by the Google advertisements that are successful at redirecting visitors but according to the Respondent in the case of the website connected to the Domain Name this does not exceed the Respondent s costs for operating the

MAGIX Audio GmbH via the Google Play Store Windows Store and Apple App Store print-outs attached as Annex 9 of the Complaint To date it has been downloaded over 10.5 million times making it one of the most successful music creation apps

bad faith It also relies on Google search results against the term Meksan Kablo which are said to prove that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name with good faith without trying to gain advantage from the reputation of the

sport team name and that a GOOGLE search for mybobcat results in thousands of images of the mammal Based on such evidence Respondent declares that BOBCAT is a very generic indistinctive and vague trademark held by the Complainant Respondent

similar domain name See Google Inc v Ravi Mani FA 1330290 Nat Arb Forum July 21 2010 and Bank of Am Fork v Shen FA 699645 Nat Arb Forum July 11 2006 Adding the Complainant s evidence showing that the subject website earlier contained

that using the term katch in Google one receives links to both Respondent and Complainant Note however that the summary information provided by the two links makes it very straightforward for someone to distinguish between the two offerings see

sur le moteur de recherche Google pour la période 2007-2009 dont un Google Analytics et des références à des articles publiés commentant son site Le Défendeur commente le rapport Google Analytics de février 2007 à décembre 2009 en

in earlier UDRP cases see e.g Google Inc v Robert Takovich WIPO Case No DMX2012-0006 Société Peclers Paris v PECLERS.COM c/o Whois Identity Shield / Société Peclers Paris Domain Administrator WIPO Case No D2007-0630 America Online Inc v

although he checked on the Google search engine and searched the USPTO website before bidding for the disputed domain name he found no evidence of potentially conflicting trade marks In reality and based on the material before the Panel Mr Pace

it convincing that a simple Google search for the word XENICAL would have led to the Complainant s affiliates website www.xenical.com and put the Respondent on notice of the Complainant s rights in the XENICAL Marks Finally the Panel finds that