Forum Oct 23 2012 see also Google Inc v PPA Media Servs FA 1468207 Nat Arb Forum Dec 12 2012 As Respondent has been a party to prior UDRP proceedings resulting in findings of bad faith against Respondent the Panel finds that Respondent has

not control the ads shown by Google iii Complainant does not own a monopoly on domain names which incorporate its marks Consumer review and complaint sites are legitimate despite making a nominative use of another s trademark iv Respondent does

create a distinct mark 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

advertising through Yahoo and Google This activity has extended throughout the sixteen states that SOE currently serves but has particularly been focused in Texas which remains SOE s largest market The SOE Site and the SAVEONENERGY.COM mark have

Name was registered and a Google search would have immediately revealed the Complainant s trademark rights The lack of any good faith attempt to ascertain whether or not the Domain Name would infringe any other party s rights may itself be

optimization results for Google searches allowing Respondent to let its customers know that Respondent helps customers who are using AOL e-mail addresses a In fact Respondent also supports users of Hotmail Yahoo AT&T and G-mail e-mail accounts

Forum Jan 13 2012 see also Google Inc v PPA Media Servs FA1468207 Nat Arb Forum June 4 2012 Eidence of previous adverse UDPR cases against a respondent indicates bad faith registration under Policy Paragraph 4 b ii See Liberty Mut Ins Co v Glu

in the first 5 pages of Google search results for the word are Complainant's Complainant submits that the Domain Name is essentially identical to Complainant SAFNA Mark Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests

Policy Paragraph4 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

to 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

Panel finds that Respondent s google-plays.biz google-plays.net and gplay-games.net domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant s GOOGLE mark pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 a i The Panel notes that Respondent s androidgoogle4.com

to Complainant An Advanced Google search for lgg and excluding any results that included the terms valio dairy yoghurt milk yogurt juice capsule vitamin powder tablet or drops to avoid references to Complainant its products or its licensees

of the Domain Name See e.g Google v Rekruta NAF FA1212001473942 finding the domain name g00gle-play.com confusingly similar to complainant s GOOGLE mark because respondent merely substituted the Os with zeros and holding the addition of the term

result on the search engines Google.com Google.com.hk and Yahoo.com for the search term SASOL 15 The Complainant operates a Chinese language website www.sasolasia.com.cn The domain name sasolasia.com.cn was registered on 21 February 2008 16 The

pattern of such behavior See Google Inc v Shuying Zhang FA 1416054 Nat Arb Forum December 29 2011 Google Inc v Shuying Zhang / / zhang shuying FA 1449297 Nat Arb Forum August 30 2012 Google Inc v zhang shu ying/ zhangshuying / LinYu / Ziamen eName

Policy Paragraph 4 b iv See Google Inc v Bassano FA 232958 Nat Arb Forum Mar 8 2004 holding that the respondent s use of the googlesex.info domain name to intentionally attract Internet users to a website featuring adult-oriented content

this proceeding Complainant Google Inc owns the GOOGLE search engine which has become one of the largest most highly-recognized and widely-used Internet search services in the world Complainant s GOOGLE search engine maintains one of the world s

Paragraph4 a i analysis 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

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

be disregarded as it cites a Google search for Complainant s business as revealing notoriety dating back more than fifteen years but fails to include documentary evidence related to the search Complainant s Annex A is merely hearsay written by a