as the search term in a Google search an Internet user is directed to a page that includes a number of links some of which are in Finnish and some of which offer opportunities to advertise on this website While it is unclear whether this

yara.com fertilizer on Google and says that this results in 6.4 million results unrelated to the Complainant but a Google search for Yara fertilizer yields only 31000 results relating to the Complainant As a result the Respondent says that

According to Complainant a Google Search of SWAROVSKI and SWARVSKI in China does not return any results that are affiliated with Respondent Furthermore Respondent has not been licensed by Complainant or authorized in any way to use the SWAROVSKI

assertions Respondent s googlegameroom.com domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant s GOOGLE mark Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the googlegameroom.com domain name Respondent registered and used the

an injunctive order against Google to have the broadcasting and content of this blog suspended within 48 hours The Court granted the injunction and Google complied with the order The evidence therefore indicates that Respondent was fully aware of

confusing similarity See Google Inc v Xtraplus Corp D2001-0125 WIPO Apr 16 2001 finding that the respondent s domain names were confusingly similar to the complainant s GOOGLE mark where the respondent merely added common terms such as buy or

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 see also

of Policy Paragraph4 a i See Google Inc v Xtraplus Corp D2001-0125 WIPO Apr 16 2001 Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names and

been made to be directed to a Google page which included a Google search engine and allowed end users to customize the site by importing various Google applications The disputed domain name had also been made to point to a pay-per-click website

search results from website Google dated Dec 23 2008 archive search results on Internet for Complainant s Website dated July 23 2002 Complainant has further contended that through continuous and exclusive use of the distinctive service marks

site is parked has a link to Google that references half dozen recipes and does nothing but trade in the traffic that visits the site as a result of consumers seeking Complainant s website This domain name should be considered as having been

also evidenced by searches on Google for Enterprise Vehicles and Enterprise Vehicle A large percentage of the top results reference to Complainant Respondent s website at the Disputed Domain Name vechileenterprise.com features links to vehicle

website is accessible Ads by Google which include an advertisement in the form of a link to ING Insurance which promotes car insurance for Mercedes vehicles but also for other brands of automobiles and for house life and other forms of insurance

web pages that contain Google AdWords pay-per-click advertisements some of which lead to transportation websites that compete with Complainant own websites Complainant wrote to Respondent on August 26 2008 and demanded that Respondent

siguientes nombres de dominio google.com creado en Septiembre de 1997 google.com.ar creado en Junio de 1999 y google.com.mx creado en Febrero de 2003 4.3 El Promovente es titular de la marca GOOGLE la cual tiene registrada en México entre otros

moteurs de recherche Yahoo Google Lycos et la Toile du Québec démontrent que la Requérante est référencée sous l'adresse web www.ramq.gouv.qc.ca La Requérante soumet qu'elle a des droits dans la marque RAMQ et qu'en vertu du droit

argues that it contracts with Google Adsense which offers common targeted advertising Respondent disclaims any intent to target Complainant and states that this third-party simply provides advertising The Panel disagrees with Respondent s position

Paragraph 4 a i Further 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

Statistics available from Google and the abundant presence of the Complainant LADUREE mark in internationally prestigious media prove that this reputation cannot be disputed in the United States or in New Jersey where the Respondent has its

is unlikely due to Google s search algorithm which places debshops.com at or near the top of page one in all cases All advertisements on debs.com are provided directly by Google Google Adsense Ads are contextually derived and served up