OHIM and the USPTO see also Google Inc v DktBot.org FA 286993 Nat Arb Forum Aug 4 2004 finding that a complainant established rights in the GOOGLE mark through its holding of trademark registrations around the world Respondent s

Moreover simple searches via Google or any other search engine using respectively the keyword DANONE and ACTIVIA show that all first results relate to Complainant products or news Even if Respondent had entered the keyword Activiadanone in the

mark rights and that a Google search of the phrase Finmedia24 does not return any results relating to the Respondent apart from the name The Complainant then draws attention to its contention that the Respondent was summarily dismissed from

zdravi which according to Google translation means Eat well be healthy Furthermore the following text is added also in small lettering © NetNutricia Dobro jeli Dobro jeli means according to Google translation good eating On December 2 2008

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

Moreover simple searches via Google or any other search engine using respectively the keywords activia or Activia Challenge would show that all first results relate to Complainant products or news and to the existing Activia Challenge program

to 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

language version of the Google search engine there are 762000 results related to the Astrid Lindgren fictitious character and when a similar search is made with the key phrase Pippi Longstocking in the English language version of the same

domain name 3 Results from a Google Search for darren entwistle 4 Telus Corporation CEO Brand Video featuring Darren Entwistle 5 Newspaper Article TELUS bucking pull-back trend Commitment to Invest 500 million good news for B.C The Province

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

du moteur de recherche Google ferait apparaître le site Internet www.pap.fr en première occurrence 2 que la défenderesse ne dispose d'aucun droit sur le nom de domaine ni d'aucun intérêt légitime Le requérant soutient à cette fin que

or service provider A Google translation of the website referred to not the website to which the disputed domain name resolves indicates that the Respondent carries on business in the field of search engine optimization The Complainants

was visually similar 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

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

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 The Panel finds

by the almost 70 million Google hits for auto blog The phrase auto blog is also used in a non-trademark manner in numerous third party websites For example the phrase Auto Blog News is featured at AUTOBLOGNEWS.COM as an automotive blog

assertions Respondent s googlewebmarketing.com domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant s GOOGLE mark Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the googlewebmarketing.com domain name Respondent registered and

The Complainant produced a Google search on the expression frontlineshop The primary results revealed links relating to the Complainant The Respondent has no affiliation with the Complainant and the Complainant has not authorized it to register

Paragraph 4 b iv see also Google Inc v Gridasov FA 474816 Nat Arb Forum July 5 2005 finding the respondent s use of the disputed domain name to divert Internet users to a website that uses tactics that may be harmful to users computers is

4 a i analysis 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