is the Complainant In fact Google searches for the phrase Glashütte Original or even the word Glashütte alone return results which almost exclusively refer to Complainant The GLASHÜTTE ORIGINAL Marks are aggressively protected through

and are auto-generated by Google and are constantly changing based on Google s keyword advertising inventory and user search behavior Respondent owns thousands of domain names of which Google auto-generated links appear on any given domain at

Policy Paragraph4 a i See e.g 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

since its inception in 1994 A Google search reveals that the Respondent appears to be the registrant of a number of domain names that make reference to casino services It is therefore highly likely that the Respondent was fully aware of the

well as via the social media Google and through the participation to various events As a result of this advertising marketing and promotion of our services the Complainant s site has 89.115 registered users and the revenues earned by the services

The Panel notes that a simple Google search for the term Gambero Rosso done by the Panel at the date of this decision gives a number of results unrelated to the Complainant s mark particularly to the websites of restaurants that bear that name

similar to the mark See also Google Inc v N/A/ k gautam FA 1524232 Nat Arb Forum Nov 18 2013 finding that a disputed domain name was confusingly similar to the mark of a UDRP complainant despite the misspelling of the mark by omitting letters and

from Complainant s 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

domain name See e.g Google Inc v Private Person / Andrey Skorodubov FA 1506184 Nat Arb Forum Jul 28 2013 finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the complainants mark regardless of the omission of a letter and

domain name See e.g 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

the name from the mark 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

Panel notes that a search on Google for Grand Prix Monaco delivers the Disputed Domain Name as the first result As noted in the section above the Panel does not accept the Respondent s arguments concerning descriptiveness or genericism The Panel

hosted on the domain name d Google did apparently succeed in crawling the domain harmonie-mutuelle-fr.com while the Respondent was working on its first private beta version That s why we cant s see some information in the Google result page

name precisely resolves to a Google page that proposes to access to the Complainantâ ¬ ¢s website The Respondent cannot seriously assert that he just uses a generic term of the German dictionary and that he has nothing to do with construction

disputed domain name 2 adds Google search results as additional evidence in order to show that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant s rights in the trademarks at issue 3 refers to 2 past UDRP cases involving the Respondent 4 states that the

false or inaccurate based on Google Maps searches made by the Complainant and although the phone number in the contact information claims to be a United States number starting with country code 1 it fails to include enough numbers for a legitimate

is carried out with the Google search engine for the Complainant COGNIZIN mark the resulting returns are for sites presenting the Complainant goods only The Respondent concludes that the disputed domain names do not misdirect visitors seeking

from Complainant s mark See Google Inc v Private Person / Andrey Skorodubov FA 1506184 Nat Arb Forum Jul 28 2013 finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the complainants mark regardless of the omission of a letter and

from the trademark See e.g Google Inc v Private Person / Andrey Skorodubov FA 1506184 Nat Arb Forum Jul 28 2013 finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the complainants mark regardless of the omission of a letter and

name from the mark See e.g Google Inc v Private Person / Andrey Skorodubov FA 1506184 Nat Arb Forum Jul 28 2013 finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the complainants mark regardless of the omission of a letter and