various search results from Google These are set out in Annex 7 The Complainant case is that the Chupa Chups name is so well-known that numerous results pertaining to the Complainant are displayed when using a search engine such as Google

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

websites most likely share a Google AdSense account with Complainant s prankdial.com domain name Therefore Respondent contends that these and not the website resolving from the prankdial.com are very possibly the source of the user traffic and ad

that a terms search on the Google search engine for street price yielded 945000 third-party results and that the meaning of the phrase street price is the average or usual price charged for a product especially one that is rarely sold at the

société comme une recherche Google l'a montré Au demeurant la requérante utilise également les noms de domaine globalre.ca pour sa société affiliée au Canada globalre.de pour sa société allemande et globalre.uk pour sa société anglaise

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

die Internetzoekmachine Google op 24 juli 2009 gaf bij invoer van de zoekterm comgest De website gekoppeld aan de Domeinnaam komt bij Google als tiende zoekresultaat naar boven Verweerster stelt dat deze treffer aantoont dat zij al jaren

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

words to such marks 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

top Internet search engine Google returns Complainant s website as the top result enabling Respondent to determine that the domain was associated with Complainant In light of the foregoing Respondent registered the Domain Name with actual and/or

complainant s 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

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

domain name and the 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

search engines like Yahoo or Google that search likely would also have informed the Respondent of the Complainant mark In circumstances similar to those presented here where the record is devoid of any indication that the respondent explored the

reason for registration A Google search for Respondent indicates that he has at least one other domain name consisting of a string of apparently unrelated letters gzfdc.com 5 This could cut either way of course it might demonstrate speculation

site in Brazil according to Google Analytic 6 million home users and more than 20 million unique users accessed the website at www.baixaki.com.br in August 2008 The Complainant owns a Brazilian trademark registration and two pending trademark

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Google Inc v Advertising services Saigon Vietnam Case No D2009-1157 1 The Parties The Complainant is Google Inc of California United States of America represented by Ranjan Narula & Associates India The Respondent is

s business 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

sans signification type google la traduction de l'anglais du terme dailymotion est mouvement quotidien Le défendeur réfute par ailleurs toute pratique de typosquatting dès lors que la lettre X située entre daily et motion a un sens dans

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