faith under Policy 4 b iv See Google Inc v Bassano FA 232958 Nat Arb Forum Mar 8 2004 holding that the respondent s use of the googlesex.info domain name to intentionally attract Internet users to a website featuring adult-oriented content

residing in Italy A Google search of the Respondent name returns results indicating that the Respondent owns a significant number of domain names and has been involved in UDRP proceedings previously 5 Parties Contentions A Complainant The

on the ground that a Google search in 2009 reflects the Complainant apparent good efforts to obtain high search engine rank in 2009 is hard to characterize as other than silly No a 2009 Google search is not evidence of a trade or service

No FA791657 November 13 2006 Google Inc v Jennifer Burns NAF Case No FA 726096 August 16 2006 The Cheesecake Factory Inc and The Cheesecake Factory Assets Co LLC v Say Cheesecake WIPO Case No D2005-0766 September 12 2005 Napster Inc v Giovanni

million references That a Google search does not indicate that use of the phrase would be a trademark use That the disputed domain name combines generic search terms in a logical order That the disputed domain name has been consistently used as

a/k/a Josh Green supra citing Google Inc v wwwgoogle.com and Jimmy Siavesh Behain WIPO Case No D2000-1240 Casio Keisanki Kabushiki Casio Computer Co Ltd v Jongchan Kim WIPO Case No D2003-0400 Downstream Technologies LLC v Bartels System GmbH WIPO

s rights in the mark see also Google Inc v Mosspot FA 547780 Nat Arb Forum Nov 3 2005 Based on the uncontroverted evidence submitted by Complainant the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the GOOGLE mark that arise from both the use in

infringing on the mark as the Google ad sense content on the pages all reflect the car dealer industry Furthermore during the process of when the car dealership site was up many of Free Bridge Auto Sales Inc clients were going to the Respondent s

confusingly similar see also Google Inc v Xtraplus Corp D2001-0125 WIPO Apr 16 2001 finding that the respondent s domain names were confusingly similar to the complainant s GOOGLE mark where the respondent merely added common terms such as buy or

the top ranking achieved in a Google search for its domain name and for trade me and variants and that those terms have also acquired secondary meaning as its brand name in which it has considerable goodwill In support of the latter contention it

The Domain Name resolves to a Google Apps website 5 Parties Contentions A Complainant The Complainant developed only very brief arguments and was very succinct in the development of such arguments It argues the following the disputed Domain Name is

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

page website provided by Google Inc offering links to Google Google apps services and displaying the disputed domain name prominently at the top of the page 5 Parties Contentions A Complainant The Complainant contends that each of the elements

similar analysis 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

in this mark are several Google search results for the term prairie hill grain These search results do not show any extensive use of Complainant s PLEASANT HILL GRAIN GOODNESS FROM THE NEBRASKA PRAIRIE mark or show that Complainant s mark has

paid advertising links Ads by Google including links to the Complainant website and to websites or other merchants that compete directly with the Complainant The Respondent registered the disputed domain name valuepetmeds.com on September 15 2006

Paragraph 4 a i see also Google Inc v disk prazer FA 1245392 Nat Arb Forum Mar 24 2009 finding that even if a term is translated into Portuguese its addition fails to distinguish a domain name from a mark see also Nev State Bank v Modern Ltd

also contends that a simple Google search for the term ilounge would have revealed Complainant s iLounge mark Complainant concludes that there can be no doubt that Respondent was aware of Complainant s iLounge mark and the goods and services

in 112 UDRP decisions See Google Inc v Tex Int l Prop Assoc NA NA FA 1212995 Nat Arb Forum Aug 25 2008 see also Am Airlines Inc v Tex Int l Prop Assoc NA NA FA 1223585 Nat Arb Forum Oct 29 2008 The Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in a

primarily uses the domain for Google Apps 5 The domain name DEACOM is alleged to be similar although not identical to Respondent s last name DEAN C Additional Submissions by Complainant 1 The domain name at issue is not being used in connection