Respondent contends a Google search demonstrates nothing on Complainant s website would be confused with Respondent s domain name Respondent contends precedent supports his position and Complainant did not show otherwise Respondent states

sentimenttrader.com through Google Adwords during the following two month period Respondent is engaged in the business of selling software that measures market sentiment for the futures market specifically for the S&P 500 futures contracts

are looking up her name in Google She also states that the only information posted at the disputed domain sites are negative offensive and incorrect comments about her and her business activities B Respondent Respondent answers the Complaint

counsel for AMI states that a Google search for David Pecker �s name produces 389000 results Mr. Antonello further states that �Mr Pecker �s name has been indelibly etched in the public mind with AMI Mr Pecker �s name is constantly being used to

registered He did not tell Google what to display on the site with regards to content or ads In his Response he says I am happy to let them have it provided they cover my costs at this point of about 750 C Additional Submissions In its

other references found in a google � search Betacar is known as a minor type-in and such names frequently are quite similar to the same name on other TLDs and in other contexts B2 The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of

links are provided by Google The copy of the web page attached to the Complaint is not Respondent s web site but a default page that Google through the DNS hosting service improperly displayed as a result of a temporary technical problem

are looking up my name in google.ca to find any information about me The only information that is posted on the website listed above is negative and incorrect I note that Complainant does not allege that it holds a registration or a trademark

spent approximately 140000 on Google advertising alone promoting its marks Complainant is the previous registrant of each disputed domain name Respondent allegedly gained access to the registrar s system in October 2006 and changed the registration

of 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 an invented term A simple Google search for �Compuware � results in the top hits all relating to the Complainant and its services As such it appears unlikely that the Respondent would have chosen the disputed domain name without some knowledge

from �www.eudip.com � and Google and certain web pages returned thereby all provided in Exhibit H to the Complaint the Respondent registered several �BLACKROCK �-based domain names e.g blackrockentertainment com blackrockwireless.com and

shovel roll-about fan A Google search of the term roll about yields 184000 Third-Party uses of the term Respondent establishes rights or legitimate interests in the rollabout.com domain name under Policy Paragraph 4 b ii because it is

also provided evidence of a Google search for the terms landandhunt in which only Respondent s website itself turned up which Complainant argues establishes that there has been no commercial use of the domain beyond its current use Respondent

search engines like Yahoo and Google would have shown that MOBILCOM is a trademark The Panel thus concludes that the Respondent has registered this Domain Name to prevent Complainant from reflecting its mark in the corresponding com Domain Name and

pay-per-click marketing on Google and other major search engines and partnering with popular online coupon distributors Complainant says it has received high user ratings and awards recognizing its activities It submits that the disputed domain

prime connections An advanced Google search for the term prime connections without primeconnections1 primeconnections.net vip or concierge to eliminate references to Complainant yielded 1670 third party uses of this common descriptive term The

s rights in the mark 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 Am Int

with the September 26 2006 Google Company s 1-10 mark rankings of usage and popularity Pfizer s English Website was accredited 7 marks by www.google.com which is basically compatible to its generally recognized status while its Chinese website

links are provided by Google Therefore Respondent contends that it has created a good faith business that is valuable to Internet users to locate providers of goods and services through reference to common well known generic descriptive and