GENERAL mark see also 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

produced the results of a Google search run on the expression champagne showing 19 million results on United Kingdom websites The Respondent says that when he registered the Domain Name he had no knowledge of the Complainant or of any

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

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

the disputed domain names v Google Inc FA 1311521 holding that the Panel finds the failure of Respondent googleplace.com domain name to resolve to an active website supports findings of bad faith registration and use vi Daimler AG FA 1323955

or motor vehicles A simple Google search results in 8.8 million results i.e legourmetdepot.com a US company or gourmet-depot.net which is located in Germany Complainant s evidence of marketing and advertising expenditure relates to the year 2010

offering pay per click 6 The google.com search supplied by the Complainant shows 64300000 matches on the dictionary words monkey says 7 Respondent argues that all its domain names were purchased in good faith and some of them have been developed

cached and could be traced on Google s web cache The Respondent also created a link to its website under the domain name giaycao.com the second website The Complainant believes the second website is also operated by the Respondent The second

Businesses chart provided by Google The Complainant emphasizes that its sales over the Internet represented 30 of the Complainant s total sales in 2010 and that the use of the disputed domain name has become crucial and compulsory for the

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

matters once and for all This Google Profile leads the reader back to deannpladson.com with an active link It is also believed that he set up a fake Facebook Profile referring people back to deannpladson.com Complainant s DeAnn Pladson mark the

their domain names through Google s ads by Google program There is nothing in the WHOIS records or on Respondent s web page to indicate that Respondent is commonly known as ALAMO WORKS See Compagnie de Saint Gobain v Com-Union Corp D2000-0020

Exhibit 3 of the Response The Google Adsense account Exhibit 1 of the Response discloses revenue of EUR 1.24 C Facts adduced in evidence by the Complainant in its Supplemental Filing A Google search for volvo discloses only results for products of

Case No D2004-0784 citing Google Inc v wwwgoogle.com and Jimmy Siavesh Behain WIPO Case No D2000-1240 Casio Keisanki Kabushiki Kaisha Casio Computer Co Ltd v Jongchan Kim WIPO Case No D2003-0400 and Downstream Technologies LLC v Bartels System

site and a page containing Google Ads and links to the Indian Org.in provider Respondent s domain names divert Complainant s customers and potential customers to Respondent s website and to other websites which are not associated with

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

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 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

of 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 Morgan

in the first few pages of a Google search than the drugstore usage Accordingly there is some superficial plausibility to the view that Respondent may have selected this term for its software meaning rather than its drugstore reference and may