as a search term in the Google search engine one is prompted Do you mean cincinnati Furthermore the first two pages of the Google results at least all appear to be misspellings that refer to Cincinnati In the absence of any other evidence or

from the trade mark see e.g Google Inc v Google Adwords Service at HCMC Vietnam WIPO Case No D2013-0298 and Nike Inc v No Owner / Ashkan Mohammadi WIPO Case No D2013-1297 Here the Panel finds that the distinctive element of ploomuk.com is the

consists of a sole link to Google search results for vitamin products associated with the AREDS2 Study e Respondent uses AREDS2 to refer to the study conducted by Complainant and makes clear on its website that there is no sponsorship or

to Policy Paragraph 4 a i 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

s TD AUTO FINANCE 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

confusing similarity 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

from Facebook Twitter Google Linkedin and YouTube Complainant has rights in the SOCIALBAKERS mark under Policy Paragraph 4 a i Complainant registered the SOCIALBAKERS mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office USPTO Reg No

The Respondent submits that a Google search in Turkey reveals many deep established and different companies bearing the name Akpa which have no concern with the Complainant and cites several examples The Respondent contends that the Complainant is

first page of results from a Google search for Europcar and Europcar China were exclusively associated with the Complainant see Annex 2 The Complainant submits that the Respondent registered the Domain Name in bad faith In light of the Complainant

of April 10 2004 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 from the Trademark 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

Quantec Rosetta Stone Ltd v Google Inc 676 F.3d 144 4th Cir 2012 the Court noted that nominative fair use usually comes into play when a defendant uses a famous mark to identify or compare the trademark owner s product Elements of the defense

of March 5 2009 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

a i 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

the name Lewis Silkin by the Google search engine would have revealed that the Domain Name was identical or similar to the Complainant s trademark and common law rights Complainant alleges that Respondent registered the Domain Name with the clear

that some straightforward Google searching establishes that there are many websites using the term campy He supplies some examples attached to the Response The Respondent questions why the Complainant did not take the disputed domain name for

Ex 12 Complainant cites to Google Inc v Private Person / Dmitriy Rekruta FA1212001473942 Nat l Arb Forum Jan 14 2013 noting that The Panel finds Respondent s use of the disputed domain name to offer competing game applications while using

of getting higher rankings in Google searches for its customer The Respondent states that also other domain names comprising famous trademarks like SONY TEFALand VESTEL in combination with the abbreviation avm were registered by the Respondent on

Case No D2004-0784 citing Google Inc v wwwgoogle.com and Jimmy Siavesh Behain WIPO Case No D2000-1240 Casio Keisanki Kabushiki Kaisha Casio Computer Co Ltd v Jongchan Kim WIPO Case No D2003-0400 Downstream Technologies LLC v Bartels System GmbH

de busca de palavras chave do Google que apresentou resultado relevante sendo seu uso feito sem má fé e sem fins lucrativos Conclui afirmando esperar que o nome de domínio em disputa não seja transferido injustamente por ter demorado muito