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

an internet user performs a google search on Essiac 43 pages come up all of which are directly or indirectly connected with the Respondents This is an egregious bad faith use of the trademark owner s registered mark via the subject domain names

Paragraph 4 a i analysis 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

the State of Utah A simple Google search by the Panel of the term sutherland institute returned over 400000 hits The first five pages of the results and the limit of the Panel inquiry virtually entirely referenced Complainant Panel research of

Panel has noted that a cached Google version of the above mentioned website dated April 18 2009 clearly indicates that the printouts submitted by the Complainant truly reflected the content of the Respondent website Having the above in mind the

Entertainment rather than Google home page Hopefully this is a more satisfactory interim solution for you at least until such time that the domain owner has the time and resources to develop the amblin.com domain In response to John Doe's

to show secondary meaning A Google search for NM classifieds confirms that the terms are by no means exclusively associated with Complainant Respondent uses the Domain name in its descriptive/generic sense i.e in connection with classified

advertisement based on Google search ranking The confusion of the matched search terms happened due to purely technical circumstances as a result of the business practices of Sedo Google and their advertisers Respondent in no way influenced

trademark authority 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 Thermo

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 While trademark

trademark authority 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

to Policy Paragraph 4 a i 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

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 Complainant

This would be evidenced by a Google search which was made with the terms lsg sky which showed that all of the first 50 results out of a total of about 81700 hits exclusively point to the Complainant and none to the Respondent There would in

Through Internet searches in Google or Yahoo the Complainant has found that the Respondant has not been commonly known by the domain name It is obvious that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name

evidenced by the existence of Google pay-per-click ads that redirect Internet users to Disputed Domain Name cedarvillealumni.com With all of the Complainant s prior arguments suggesting that the Respondent has or will benefit from alleged

campaigns through Yahoo and Google As a result the PROXIFY and PROXIFIER marks are widely known and embody substantial and valuable goodwill The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are based on the term proxyfire which is

by a simple search on Google engine The Complainant therefore points out that the Respondent had to know that Monier is using the name Braas and that Monier has several trademarks regarding those goods which Respondent offers under

and reference is made to Google results that it exhibits It states that there are at least 8 golf courses around the world that use that term and that accordingly it is not exclusively associated with the Complainant or St Andrews Links In the

this domain name as listed on Google search engine is Argento Wine Club In addition to the trade mark applications and registrations relating to the ARGENTO brand which the Complainant owns the Complainant operates the website www.argentowine.com