of AAA locksmiths using the Google or Yahoo search engine yields a myriad of enterprises doing business as AAA Locksmiths and AAA Locksmith in the United States.8 These businesses do not appear to be associated with Complainant In the Panel s

insurance services Moreover a Google or Yahoo search of the terms AAA insurance yields extensive reference to Complainant s AAA insurance services A review of the results does not suggest wide use by third parties to designate a different brand of

of a simple search via Google using the keyword Carrefour relate to the Complainant s products news or trademark The Disputed Domain Name was used in bad faith The Respondent likely registered the Disputed Domain Name to prevent the

trademark authority See Google Inc v DktBot.org FA 286993 Nat Arb Forum Aug 4 2004 finding that the complainant had established rights in the GOOGLE mark through its holding of numerous trademark registrations around the world see also

As proof of this a simple Google search yields a never-ending array of results related to the Complainant´s company just as this arbitrator was able to verify and also as the Complainant has proved by means of a screen that the server yields

MISS ASPREY marks see also 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

submits evidence of a Google search indicating that ficep@ficep.com is publicly available on many websites and thus argues that the Respondent's submission that ficep@ficep.com is not publicly available is not true Finally the Complainant

or in any other language A Google search on the wording SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC displays various results all related to the Complainant The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Name.The Respondent is not affiliated

of the Internet using the Google search engine and the search terms comericaj comericaj.com and comericaj Brett Hoover showed no results indicating use of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or service t

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

de marcas español o en Google hubiera permitido al Demandado conocer a la Demandante y sus derechos A juicio de la Demandante el nombre de dominio en disputa guiamichelin.com.es también está siendo usado de mala fe ya que el nombre de

3 The Respondent has used Google translate to translate the case materials into Chinese which means the quality of the translation is not very good It would therefore be unfair to the Respondent if the proceeding were to be conducted in English

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

is the first result in Google searches for the terms El Nacional and ELNACIONAL Further as discussed above the record shows Complainant owned trademark rights in the EL NACIONAL Marks and had registered its own domain name long before the

Internet company behind only Google and Amazon By the end of 2012 the Complainant had nearly 800 million instant messenger user accounts The Complainant Tencent Holdings Limited owns many registrations for its TENCENT mark around the world

name from the AMWAY 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

from the TUMBLR trademark 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

the Complainant as the Google of Travel Sites The Complainant states that it was awarded the prestigious WITovation Award in the year 2001 for its pioneering efforts in use of mobile technology for travel The Complainant contends the average

Paragraph 4 a i analysis 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

and miss the best solution Google enabling any legitimate user to bid competitor s brand and trademark is based on such type of rights Anyway we respect the decision made by Administrative Panel The Panel will treat this as he would a formal