prima facie suggests that its Google Ad revenues in the past 6 months amounts to EUR 73.64 So far as the Respondent www.uget.com advertisement is concerned the Respondent claims that the intention was to use any revenues generated to offset the

halifax email GoDaddy com www google co uk e g cases 2 lloydsbank WhenU E D yoyo YOYO EMAIL stuartweitzman brand problems 4 name 5 N V 6 Manager/yoyo Inc /Corporation nikesportstravel niketravel adidas budweiser cacharel danone esteelauder

as registrant The panel in Google Inc v DOMAIN ADMINISTRATOR / FUNDACION PRIVATE WHOIS FA1519295 Nat Arb Forum Oct 29 2013 held that some of the best evidence to determine if a Respondent has rights or interests by being commonly known by the

on the first page of either Google.com and Google.co.nz searches for bespoke plus card These searches mainly bring up references to personalised stationery services and a third party The Bespoke Privilege Card apparently unrelated to the

on the first page of either Google.com and Google.co.nz searches for bespoke plus card These searches mainly bring up references to personalised stationery services and a third party The Bespoke Privilege Card apparently unrelated to the

an increasingly high-level Google ranking when Complainant trademarks are searched Any purported right to criticize claimed by Respondent is seriously undercut by this attempt to divert traffic and by the fact that the Domain Name incorporates

in the interim until Google has updated its index Google has started the process of removing references to the above domain from its index Regarding point 3 there are no printed materials If the above is not adequate for you to commit to

icq-download.com from ICQ Google Inc v Zhang FA0901001245131 Nat Arb Forum March 13 2009 finding googlevideodownloads.com confusingly similar to GOOGLE Google Inc v Chen FA1108001403007 Nat Arb Forum Sept 22 2011 finding google-dns.com

s TRUSTED CHOICE mark See Google Inc v N/A/ k gautam FA 1524232 Nat Arb Forum Nov 18 2013 finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the at-issue mark despite the misspelling of the mark by omitting letters the addition of

club The Respondents exhibit Google search results for Club Sail They state that while the website www.clubyachting.com is one of the results returned there is no mention of Club Sail in the text and nothing to suggest that an Internet user would

by conducting a simple Google search The Complainants are skeptical of the Respondent explanation that it registered the Disputed Domain Name to refer to its client business name as it has provided no evidence of this business name or any

name in a meaningful way 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

as registrant The panel in Google Inc v DOMAIN ADMINISTRATOR / FUNDACION PRIVATE WHOIS FA1519295 Nat Arb Forum Oct 29 2013 held that some of the best evidence to determine if a Respondent has rights or interests by being commonly known by the

it is Ordered that the google-suche.com domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC Panelist Dated October 29 2014 google suche.com e mail postmaster@google single member google-suche com

results of a simple search on Google to demonstrate the presence of several websites with the term CYBERKNIFE as part of the domain name address Respondent claims to have rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name because he is a

displaying the message oops Google Chrome could not connect/find Respondent s tdcanadatrustserver.com domain name presents the message Access forbidden New XAMPP security concept or Network Error See Complainant s Exhibit F 5 Respondent

minimale sur le moteur Google.com Cette recherche affiche de nombreux résultats liés aux marques JAEGER LECOULTRE du Requérant De ce constat la Commission administrative estime que les marques JAEGER LECOULTRE sont connues du public et de

is confusingly similar See Google Inc v N/A/ k gautam FA 1524232 Nat Arb Forum Nov 18 2013 finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the at-issue mark despite the misspelling of the mark by omitting letters the addition of

highly distinctive see also Google Inc v N/A/ k gautam FA 1524232 Nat Arb Forum Nov 18 2013 finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the at-issue mark despite the misspelling of the mark by omitting letters the addition of

confusing similarity See Google Inc v N/A/ k gautam FA 1524232 Nat Arb Forum Nov 18 2013 finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the at-issue mark despite the misspelling of the mark by omitting letters the addition of