el hosting publicidad con Google o facturas por los servicios de estadística de visitas y la propia evolución de la página web Por otra parte manifiesta el Demandado que no ha existido intención de confundir a los usuarios sobre la

LINDT or LINDT CANDY in the Google search engine the top returned results point to Complainant and its products Complainant argues that Respondent could easily have performed a similar search before registering the Domain Name and would have

it has filed as evidence the Google Analytics Audience Overview for policybazaar.com for the period from January 1 2014 to December 31 2014 The Complainant states its insurance comparison engine runs due to intense research and periodic updating

A simple search via Google or any other search engine using the keywords SOFITEL or SO BY SOFITEL would have brought forth results pertaining to the Complainants or their products Bad faith can be found where a domain name is so obviously

fraudulent purposes 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

and other websites Even a Google search which limits results to dates between 2003 and 2005 and excludes Complainant s own websites shows how extensive was the reputation of the WORDPRESS Mark during Complainant s early history In 2006

it briefly sends the user to Google and thereafter sends the user to the user s destination ebscomags.com Complainant asserts that this re-routing allows Respondent to generate click-through revenue Prior panels have found that using a disputed

Respondent began utilizing Google s then-free Keyword Tool to determine what keywords in the financial industry were the most heavily searched on Google Respondent s basic formula for getting on the first page of search engines is having unique

when entering the url address 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

s HAMPTON BAY trademark See Google Inc v serap ozk FA 1562193 Nat Arb Forum July 14 2014 finding that adding terms removing the space in the GOOGLE GLASS mark and adding a gTLD does not add any distinction to a disputed domain name to avoid

with the letter e see also 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

no revenue was received and Google Ads was removed Respondent argues that his limited liability corporation LLC had been dissolved for at least three if not four years before Complainant made any attempt to dispute his website trademark or LLC

NAF Claim No 791657 Google Inc v Jennifer Burns NAF Claim No 726096 The Cheesecake Factory Inc and The Cheesecake Factory Assets Co LLC v Say Cheesecake WIPO Case No D2005-0766 Napster Inc v Giovanni Vinscani WIPO Case No D2005-0531

Registration Date 1104306 GOOGLE European Community 09 35 38 and 42 March 12 1999 4316642 GOOGLE European Community 16 25 and 35 March 29 2005 10081073 GOOGLE stylized European Community 09 35 36 and 42 January 20 2011 The disputed domain name

hotel We seo website top 1 google and help you to expand your trademark You prosecute us to WIPO What do you think when we transfer your domain to bad target or your rival Think more carefully 6 Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4 a

to a parked page monitored by Google for trademark infringement Respondent argues that since he has not created a website for the Domain Name there is no way that he could have defamed Complainant Respondent indicates that the Domain Name has been

name to take advantage of its Google rank The panel considered this in itself to be evidence of bad faith because it showed the respondent knew the goodwill attached to the domain name The domain name was ordered to be transferred 6 Delia Ephron v

confusing similarity ii Google Inv v Babaian FA 1060992 Nat Arb Forum Oct 1 2007 holding that where the registrant added generic words like web date drive and storage that have an obvious relationship to Complainant s business the domain

WIPO Case No D2008-1441 where Google searches produced many descriptive results and none of the first ten results referred to the complainant in those matters the situation is different here since a Google search of the word major shows Complainant

commerce See e.g Rescuecom v Google 2d Circuit 2009 562 F.3d 123 This is an unsettled issue But whatever may be the precise state of the use requirement under US law paragraph 4 b ii of the Policy does not speak of use of a disputed domain name in