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 Respondent s

mark and by the fact that a Google search for the Ushida Findlay phrase shows a large number of entries all of which refer to the Complainant and its predecessor architectural practice In all these circumstances the Panel is satisfied that the

and Complainant s mark See Google Inc v Forum LLC FA 1053323 Nat Arb Forum Oct 1 2007 finding googlenews.com confusingly similar to GOOGLE and awarding transfer see also Nortel Networks Ltd v BuyMeBuyMe.com Inc FA 671847 Nat Arb Forum May 16

the string Lamborghini with Google.com results in approximately 41600000 hits The first 50 hits mostly link to websites dealing with cars of the Complainant group be it in connection with the trading of cars or fan pages The Complainant group

résultat d'une recherche sur Google à partir d'une requête sur la dénomination CIC sur le web mondial non limitée aux pages francophones ou de sites exclusivement français La réponse porte sur plus de 11 millions de résultats et les

los programas de Internet Google y Yahoo como prueba de la difusión en Internet de los términos Chevrolet y Chevrolet Volt asociados a la Demandante General Motors Corporation aportando asimismo el resultado negativo de la búsqueda mediante

the services it provides A Google search for Norton Peskett returns results which primarily relate to the Complainant with the exception of the disputed domain name which the Respondent has registered To the Complainant knowledge there are no

s CHARTER ONE 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

Harvey Lecture ten pages of Google results for Joseph Schlessinger mostly about the Complainant and an assortment of print or on-line articles about his work on cancer cell physiology related drugs and associated business ventures The Complainant

differences matter see also Google Inc v Wolfe FA 275419 Nat Arb Forum July 18 2004 The froogles.com domain name is not confusingly similar to Complainant GOOGLE mark The dissimilar letters in the domain name are sufficiently different to make it

attempting to do a Yahoo or Google search of travehost First the user is asked if they meant travelhost and the search then brings up website owned or controlled by the Complainant Similarly a search on findownersearch.com for Travehost takes the

Respondent produced Yahoo and Google searches on the expression Hybrid Language Processing These searches provided links to various third party websites none of which appears to reproduce precisely the expression Digital Hybrid Language Processing

Adding 4people to the word Google gives the impression that google4people is a sub-branch of the Google operation which will be confusing and misleading for consumers who will assume that the Respondent is related to the Complainant The phrase

for national rent a car This Google search returned sponsored advertising links for Expedia Ask.com Lowfares.com Orbitz and local Respondent refers to a Google search for national rent a car annexed as an exhibit to the Response Respondent argues

name from a 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

arbitration forum DECISION Google Inc v Leadsco c/o coby elimelech Claim Number FA0906001267428 PARTIES Complainant is Google Inc Complainant represented by Meredith M Pavia of Fenwick & West LLP California USA Respondent is Leadsco c/o coby

a German word The use of the Google translation tool is not determinative because if Google is unable to translate a word it simply reproduces the original For example if a user asks Google to translate from German into English a random

arbitration forum DECISION Google Inc v IAI Claim Number FA0906001266305 PARTIES Complainant is Google Inc Complainant represented by Hoang-chi Truong of Fenwick & West LLP California USA Respondent is IAI Respondent Virginia USA REGISTRAR AND

world including France 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 Am Int

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