CONTENTIONS A Complainant A Google and the ANDROID Mark 10 Google is a Delaware corporation located in Mountain View California created in 1997 Google is renowned for its search engine services offered under the GOOGLE mark and also offers a

known in the world that a Google search of words REMY MARTIN or REMI MARTIN displays several results related to the Complainant To the Panel this is not sufficient evidence The sole fact that Google displays several results cannot in itself

third-party links such as google.com/chrome maturesinglesonly.com worldsbestbackgrounds.com Complainant argues that this use of the disputed domain name further establishes that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed

with the letter e see also 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

Complainant s business A Google search for blue ribbon tack indicates that the first listed return is for Complainant s official website and that the third and fourth listings are for Respondent s website thus creating the chance for Internet

linkedni.com domain name 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

pharmaceutical products In Google Inc v Bassano FA 232958 Nat Arb Forum Mar 8 2004 the panel determined that the respondent used the disputed domain name to attract Internet users to a website that posted adult-oriented content which was an

STANBIC and STANBIC BANK on Google.com and Yahoo.com all relate to the Complainant s business The first page of search results for the term STANBIC IB PLC on Google all relate to the Complainant s business The total income from the Complainant s

arbitration forum DECISION Google Inc v North American Payment Systems Claim Number FA1210001467517 PARTIES Complainant is Google Inc Complainant represented by Katie Krajeck of Cooley LLP California USA Respondent is North American Payment

has protectable rights in the GOOGLE mark under Policy Paragraph 4 a i based on its trademark registrations and its use of the mark around the world See Google Inc v DktBot.org FA 286993 Nat Arb Forum Aug 4 2004 finding that the complainant had

associates its website with Google advertisements again to profit off of 3M s LITTMANN Marks A user that clicks on one of the ads is taken to Google site that shows additional advertisements for 3M s competitors In addition to the commercial

standards of the Policy See Google Inc v Jon G FA 106084 Nat Arb Forum Apr 26 2002 finding googel.com to be confusingly similar to a complainant s GOOGLE mark and noting that t he transposition of two letters does not create a distinct mark

domain name from the 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

it to establish rights in the GOOGLE mark under 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

a 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 Complainant s GOOGLE mark where the respondent merely added common terms such as buy or gear

arbitration forum DECISION Google Inc v Sheridan Simove Claim Number FA1210001466711 PARTIES Complainant is Google Inc Complainant represented by Katie Krajeck of Cooley LLP California USA Respondent is Sheridan Simove Respondent United Kingdom

for power over pests using Google s search engine reveals that the Mark is synonymous with Complainant s services The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its POWER OVER PESTS mark as it is identical to the

by the Adsense program from Google Inc for which the Respondent receives fees and commissions The Complainant further alleges that the sponsored links lead to several websites of other car manufacturers or businesses where competing products are

ranks first and second for Google.ie searches for driving licence and it ranks third and fourth for searches for drivinglicence While the term driving licence may be highly descriptive the Complainant s use of the term has acquired the requisite

of confusing similarity.à See Google Inc v DktBot.org FA 286993 Nat Arb Forum Aug 4 2004 â ¬ÅThe mere addition of a single letter to the complainantâ ¬ ¢s mark does not remove the respondentâ ¬ ¢s domain names from the realm of confusing