campaigns As you know Google is the main player in online advertisement business Google rank of a website has a direct effect on one online popularity The higher rank a website has more online traffic it attracts less pay per click price is

from Complainant s mark 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

Paragraph 4 a i see also 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

city and Foreignness on Google do not turn up any relevant hits In fact the former did not turn up any hits whatsoever The Center attempt to courier the Complaint to the Respondent address resulted in delivery failure In the circumstances the

using 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

Ph D www google Bloomberg //www com/intl/en/options/ U S e g googlevideo googlevideos googlemovie googlemovies googleforums googlewebmaster pepsiadventure net pepsitennis googlevideodownload googledatadrive googlenetstorage

the 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

such as BARBIE YOUTUBE GOOGLE EARTH CRAIG'S LIST and MICROSOFT B Respondents Respondents did not reply to Complainant contentions 6 Discussion and Findings A Multiple Respondents As a rule under the Policy and the Rules a case cannot be

conducted by the Panel on the Google search engine for the Complainant name Kishore Biyani reflects around 29500 results which are mostly in connection with his companies and business The name of the Complainant had been used extensively in the

No FA 791657 November 13 2006 Google Inc v Jennifer Burns NAF Claim 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

s Website Secondly a Google search for the word gorilla produces more than 14 million results including links to sites such as www.gorilla.com www.helpgorills.com www.sosgorilla.com www.gorillarescue.com and www.stopgorilla.com none of

No FA 791657 November 13 2006 Google Inc v Jennifer Burns NAF Claim 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

name from the mark see also 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

advertising consolidator Google to return search results from the database on the basis of Google s perceived understanding of the contextual relationships between the domain names and search terms for which advertisers have paid subscriptions

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

name from the mark see also 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

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

The Respondent points to Google search results showing that ViaMedia is used by numerous other parties commercially and otherwise and that a third party already uses the domain name viamedia.com The Panel reads these remarks as challenging the

domain names 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

have been created using the Google AdSense service and they appear to have been to websites which had no connection with the Complainants The text also contained a hyperlink to a website operated by a competing jeans supplier with the statement