200 stores around the world A Google search on maje displays results all of which relate to the Complainant A1 The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights The

các quảng cáo của Google trên trang web của họ chỉ nhằm mục đích tái cân bằng chi phí Bị Đơn đã chi trả cho việc đăng ký tên miền tranh chấp và không có gì là không đáng tin cậy bởi vì

adds that when a search via Google or on any other search engines is performed using the keywords loreal fb composing the domain name it is to be noted that all the first results are linked to the Complainant s presence on Facebook According to

for the term Secret Flying on Google the Respondent s web site does not appear in the search results and when searching for the term Secret Flyer on Google the Complainant s web site does not appear in the search results The Respondent states that

Policy Paragraph 4 b iv See Google Inc v Bassano FA 232958 Nat Arb Forum Mar 8 2004 holding that the respondent s use of the googlesex.info domain name to intentionally attract Internet users to a website featuring adult-oriented content

The Complainant relies on Google Inc v Robert Takovich WIPO Case No DMX2012-0006 to support its argument Moreover the Complainant contends that the circumstances of the case reveals an identity theft because despite the fact that the disputed

a simple Internet search via Google or any other search engine using the keyword MICHELIN would have demonstrated that all first results relate to the Complainant s products or news Bad faith can be found where a respondent knew or should have

Complainant simply because Google search results return hits for competing businesses whose services are accurately described by those terms Respondent together with her husband owns and operates a vein clinic in the city of Las Vegas Respondent

Google Inc v Carter Johnson Claim Number FA1507001630194 PARTIES Complainant is Google Inc Complainant represented by Melissa Alcantara of Dickinson Wright PLLC Washington D.C USA Respondent is Carter Johnson Respondent Canada REGISTRAR AND

BANK OF AUSTRALIA GOOGLE JUMP GOOGLE MOBILITY GOOGLE PHOTOS THE HOME DEPOT and WHOLE FOODS For all of the above reasons the Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name B Respondent The Respondent did not file a formal

marketing techniques See also Google Inc v Bassano FA 232958 Nat Arb Forum Mar 8 2004 Holding that the respondent use of the googlesex.info domain name to intentionally attract Internet users to a web site featuring adult orientated content

page with 315 likes that a Google Trend report shows increased use of binary option robot after 2013 and claims of 3799 sales by the Complainant there is clearly inadequate evidence to support a finding of unregistered trademark rights In

with a pornographic picture A Google search for elements of the registrant data from the WhoIs records has detected several domain name registrations composed of famous marks which were already the subject of the following WIPO UDRP decisions

NEWS mark see also 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

in bad faith In addition in Google Inc v Dmitri Rytsk WIPO Case No DAU2007-0004 the panel referred to a general type of bad faith The Complainant does not rely specifically on these criteria but rather on a general notion of bad faith which it is

Respondent s address and a Google map showing its location Having looked at this website the Panel was unable to conclude that it provided reasonable corroboration of a genuine business being operated by the Respondent The Panel s Procedural

goods and services see also Google Inc v Petrovich FA 1339345 Nat Arb Forum September 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

20 2004 Complainant uses the GOOGLE mark to identify a wide range of Internet-related products and services including Internet search and online advertising services The googleart.com domain name is confusingly similar to the GOOGLE mark The

name to complainant see also Google Inc v Abraham Joseph FA 1616022 Nat Arb Forum June 2 2015 finding the insertion of a single generic word insufficient to distinguish the domain names from complainant s trademark and ultimately transferring the

to Policy Paragraph 4 a i 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