purchased from Yahoo Inc and Google through affiliate marketing through third parties who in turn market to their consumers through online means and traditional marketing means such as direct mail and also through telemarketing radio and

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 Complainant

of 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

will not open 6 Using the Google and Yahoo search engines a consumer cannot find amexfs.com or amexfinancialservices.com by just typing the word AMEX The consumer must type in the complete name to access the site See Response Exhibit A 7 If a

de una búsqueda en Google de las palabras banco ing direct cuyos 50 primeros resultados son noticias y/o textos asociados a la Demandante e La Demandante ha requerido al Demandado mediante burofax certmail y varios correos electrónicos

coined term such as yahoo or google Respondent found that there was 2140000 search results when Respondent searched for ¡®bluestone¡¯ at the website of ¡®google.co.kr¡¯ and only six results were found in relation to Complainant¡¯s

conducted numerous Google and other search engine searches for ZPower and both Respondent and ZPower products relating to Respondent were never identified On information and belief it was not until late 2008 subsequent to extensive use

for therapists A search on Google MSN and other search engines reveals many third parties using the term therapy finder in just this fashion A merely descriptive or generic term cannot be protected as a trademark Respondent has a legitimate

trademark itself 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

SWAROVSKI wwwgoggle.com GOOGLE etc In addition to this the Respondent has been a respondent in several other UDRP cases and lost for example Viacom International Inc v Bladimir Boyiko WIPO Case No D2008-0867 and Gray Television Group Inc v

l'intermédiaire du moteur Google portant sur les mots-clés air-france.cc les résultats se référant tous aux activités du Requérant Le Requérant soutient encore que les lettres cc qui composent l'extension nationale des Iles Coco

No D2003-0088 April 14 2003 Google Inc v wwwgoogle.com and Jimmy Siavesh Behain WIPO Case No D2000-1240 November 14 2000 Numerous UDRP decisions also hold that it is bad faith to use a complainant mark to generate visitors to a for-profit site

links provided by a feed from Google Google shares resulting click ‘through advertising revenue with Respondent Respondent also receives revenue directly from individual advertisers on its sites None of the links that appeared on Respondent s

or hostile software see also Google Inc v Gridasov FA 474816 Nat Arb Forum July 5 2005 finding the respondent s use of the disputed domain name which attempted to download malicious computer software onto Internet users computers was not a bona

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

Policy Paragraph 4 b iv See 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

2 30630684 0 www afternic 3 1 google de net org us co uk hu e g A S B V InterikEA d o Respondent s and or

top internet search engine Google returns Complainant company website as the top result enabling Respondent to determine that the disputed domain was associated with Complainant Complainant alleges that Respondent blatantly provided false WHOIS

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Google Inc v Herit Shah Case No D2009-0405 1 The Parties The Complainant is Google Inc of California United States of America represented by Ranjan Narula Associates India The Respondent is Herit Shah of Gujarat India

mediante los buscadores Google Yahoo Altavista y Lycos todos ellos asociando dicha denominación con la Demandante viii En múltiples resoluciones de Grupos Administrativos de Expertos se ha establecido que el registro de una marca