of the Internet search using Google conducted by the Complainant has not referred a single one to the Respondent Annex 27 to the Complaint The Respondent does not appear to use the disputed domain name in legitimate way There is no demonstrable

the first four results of a Google search on revlonrun as carried out by the Panel refer to the domain name revlonrunwalk.org and revlonrunwalk.com which direct to websites for the EIF Revlon Run/Walk for Women an event sponsored by inter alia

from Complainant s mark 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

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

s place of business 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

purposes 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

competitors Respondent s google43.com domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant s GOOGLE mark Respondent is not authorized to use the GOOGLE mark Respondent does not have any rights to or legitimate interests in the google43.com domain

from Complainant s 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

mutuel 3d secure in the Google search engine and noticed that there are many results linking said bank to the 3D SECURE service In the end Complainant does not imply that this service is well-known but that it is nevertheless mentioned and

into the public record A Google search resulted in references that confirmed when Complainant established its service and confirmed Complainant s claim of trademark rights that predated Respondent s registration of the domain names D2010 1500

trademark authority 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 The Panel finds

from Complainant s 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

mark with the USPTO 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 The Panel also

established THE KNOT mark 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

mark with the USPTO 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 Respondent s

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

search for CLOSE BROTHERS in Google shows at least four full pages of links related exclusively to Complainant and its financial products and services It is difficult to conceive of any circumstances where Respondent was not aware of Complainant s

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 B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the

in April was a result of Google s AdWords using Radar Results as a meta tag That tag was removed following a complaint from the Respondent to Google s advertising legal support team The Respondent says that the disputed domain name was not

The first 100 hits of a Google search refer to the Complainant The Complainant does not own any trade mark registration for XIHA but is considering applying for registration in Class 42 The Complainant does not indicate which jurisdictions it