WIPO Case No D2001-0171 and Google Inc v Google Adwords Service at HCMC Vietnam WIPO Case No D2013-0298 In the present case the Panel considers that the dominant and distinctive element of the disputed domain name is the Complainant s well-known

to be legitimate see Google Inc v Billa Rajinikar Reddy WIPO Case No D2009-1390 The parked version of the website which is presently available at the disputed domain name cannot constitute bona fide use of the disputed domain name in

datos del IMPI así como en Google el Titular actualmente no es titular de ningún registro de marca o aviso comercial para la denominación turistar ni es conocido con la denominación turistar El Titular tampoco cuenta con una reserva de

for WESTerner IN DUBAI at Google refers to a message board posting by an unrelated third party www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php t397941 Furthermore when the disputed domain name was active the Respondent was offering or linking to websites

with the Complainant A simple Google search for mytheresa provides top results that relate entirely to the Complainant The Complainant has also been in business for over 10 years The Complainant s rights have been previously recognised in decisions

similarity see for example 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

letters to the MSN 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

an unoccupied domain name d A Google search for the term newport does not product results related to Complainant or tobacco products on the first page of the search results 2 Respondent s domain names are not confusingly similar to Complainant s

Policy Paragraph 4 a i 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 Respondent s

para the cheesecake factory Google arroja más de 15 millones de resultados los cuales se refieren a la cadena de restaurante que opera la Promovente y sus empresas filiales iv La Promovente afirma que la fama del restaurante The Cheesecake

en el motor de búsqueda GOOGLE Anexo 7 y comunicados de prensa relacionados con las iniciativas del Demandante con respecto a la educación nacional Anexo 6 Adicionalmente el Panelista único realizó una búsqueda ex officio de la marca del

arbitration forum DECISION Google Inc v Domain Admin / PrivacyProtect.org Claim Number FA1311001529084 PARTIES Complainant is Google Inc Complainant represented by Nicole M Meyer of Dickinson Wright PLLC Washington D.C USA Respondent is Domain

is a common name because a Google search returns several individuals with such name 8 Respondent argues that Complainant has no rights to an individual name Michelle Esquenazi and that such an individual is not a party to this proceeding 9

support Complainant submits a Google search results page for the query Laurelhurst Sports Unlimited which returned a single link connecting to Respondent s site Complainant also alleges development of the site into Laurelhurst Sports Unlimited

a major search engine such as Google or Bing for translating its work into another language such as Spanish or Hebrew so it has no basis for so doing in the instant case A reasonable person would have no difficulty distinguishing the Domain Name

was made on my credit card to Google advertising which I disputed and had removed from my credit card There has obviously been some kind of a mix up and I would like my name and address removed from this case immediately On November 11 2013 the

the website s former state cf Google Inc v Rohini Kharma / Ranjan Narula Assocs WIPO Case No D2009-1730 ordering transfer where inter alia the respondent did not contest the complainant s claim in correspondence that the Respondent s activities

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

Nat Arb Forum Jan 27 2013 Google Inc v Fundacion Private Whois / Domain Administrator FA 1473954 Nat Arb Forum Jan 22 2013 Google Inc v Fundacion Private Whois / Domain Administrator FA 1473976 Nat Arb Forum Jan 18 2013 Therefore the Panel

standards of the Policy 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