s rights in the mark see also Google Inc v Mosspot FA 547780 Nat Arb Forum Nov 3 2005 Based on the uncontroverted evidence submitted by Complainant the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the GOOGLE mark that arise from both the use in

Paragraph 4 a i see also 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 Complainant

Policy Paragraph 4 a i See Google Inc v Xtraplus Corp D2001-0125 WIPO Apr 16 2001 finding that the respondent s domain names were confusingly similar to Complainant s GOOGLE mark where the respondent merely added common terms such as buy or gear

2002 d Facturación anuncios Google años 2003 y 2004 e Etiquetas Salud Madrid archivos con fechas del 2004 f Hoja publicitaria con el nombre Salud Madrid g Cuenta Servicio Paypal Creada en el 2004 con el nombre de la empresa Salud Madrid h Fotos

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

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 ESPN

Alternative Investments AG A Google search for NM Warburg Holdings Inc provides only 8 search results none of which leads to information which proves the existence of this company In view of this it is more than unlikely that NM Warburg Holdings

Ashley by the Respondent A Google search for Ashley and the Respondent s name resulted in no relevant matches Complainant lastly alleges that the Complainant Respondent is not making a legitimate use of the domain name but is using it only to

and others Indeed a simple Google search of aida produces well over a dozen websites that have nothing to do with the Complainant before one reaches the Complainant website or another website that mentions the Complainant.2 At the same time the

Complainants marks See e.g Google Inc v Xtraplus Corp D2001-0125 WIPO Apr 16 2001 finding that the respondent s domain names were confusingly similar to the GOOGLE mark where the respondent merely added common terms such as buy or gear to the

100000.00 USD in purchase of Google AdWords since the inception of the websites to help drive traffic to the websites Complainant informs to have purchased 2 full page advertisements in the magazine Just Us Boys a full page ad in Genre magazine

with industry leaders Google and Yahoo The mere ownership of a common term domain should in and of itself establish the owner s rights and legitimate interest has been recognized by several ICANN panels There can be no proof that Respondent

net Tuonome it srl S r l www google e g i N V GO247 COM info@fashionID real-fitfire info fashionID.com a k SUARL Mamadou

Companies such as GoDaddy Google and or others for example make money off of these pay per click advertisements At the time these sponsored listings were generating money Complainant had no issue or did nothing to show Complainant had issue

disregard the submission E.g Google Inc v Texas Int l Prop Assocs FA 1212995 Nat Arb Forum Aug 25 2008 Am Culinary ChefsBest v Vertical Axis Inc FA 1082259 Nat Arb Forum Nov 28 2007 see also Eskimos Inc v Phillips FA 105950 Nat Arb Forum May 13

by over 400000 third party Google results containing the word adito Moreover the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in connection with bona fide goods and services in the nature of pay-per-click ads which further establishes its

box apparently linked to the Google Search engine Moreover from June 26 2008 up to November 3 2008 the website www.ernestjones.com transferred Internet users to a website entitled Ernestjones.com Engagement rings Resources and Information This

advertising revenues through Google Mr von Hase said that an acceptable purchase price should not be less than 400000 Euros Complaint Annex 19 In his personal statement Mr von Hase states that in this telephone conversation he informed Complainant

results on the most simple Google search relate to the band Third Eye Blind and as such its mark While this evidence against the Respondent is circumstantial the burden on the Panel is to make its finding on the basis of all the evidence

No FA791657 November 13 2006 Google Inc v Jennifer Burns NAF Case No FA 726096 August 16 2006 The Cheesecake Factory Inc and The Cheesecake Factory Assets Co LLC v Say Cheesecake WIPO Case No D2005-0766 September 12 2005 Napster Inc v Giovanni