had contracted with Google to display random advertisements on his site from which he no doubt derived commercial gain The advertisements that were presented to British visitors to the site included advertisements for the complainant

Danone A simple search via Google or any other search engine using the keyword danone demonstrates that all first results relate to Complainant products or news The fact that the famous trademark DANONE is included in its entirety in the domain

WIPO Case No D2006-0236 and Google Inc v Mosspot NAF Case No FA547780 Based on the above and without any available evidence of the Respondent rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant

que se realice a través de Google sobre la denominación winamp Que su marca WINAMP es una marca notoria y que ya lo era en fechas muy anteriores al registro del Nombre de Dominio lo que se acredita mediante documentación que pone de manifiesto

registered marks or a Google search to determine that it had no right to use the domain name for products and services that can only be characterized as competitive or directly related to those of the Complainant Furthermore the Respondent

pay-per-click advertising on google.com The Complainant has spent approximately USD 150000 a year advertising its products and services under the name Shaheen's The Complainant has advertised locally regionally and nationally in the United States

1987 Indeed a search on the Google ® search engine for California Country revealed no mention of Respondent or Mr Gibbons and in fact the top priority results were for Complainant s TV programme and its magazine There is however reference to a

a fairly standard iGoogle or Google Partnerpage customised to have the title blogloreal.com 5 Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4 a of the Policy the complainant has the burden of proof in respect of the following three elements i The domain

web such as Amazon eBay or Google The Swiss case law already had the opportunity to apply Article 956 of the Swiss Code of Obligations against domain name see BGE 125 III 191 District Court of Lausanne sic 2002 55 This however will not always be

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

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

The website also displays Google advertisements and other links to third-party websites none of which appear to be related Complainant products or brands 5 Parties Contentions A Complainant I Correspondence between the Parties Complainant avers

que se realice a través de Google sobre la denominación Zed Que es titular de numerosos registros de marca que consisten en la denominación Zed o la contienen habiéndose citado ya algunos de ellos en el apartado 4 Antecedentes de Hecho de

domain name to utilize its Google Page Rank and its aging for our search engine optimization work We have no intention to use their content or any part from their websites Response As of January 29 2009 a webpage addressed by the disputed domain

of the Respondent s website A Google search at google.com on February 5 2008 for pacific bearing sales returned pacificbeaeringsales.com as the first result A Google search at google.com on February 5 2008 for pacific bearing returned

known by the domain name A Google search for ashley and Private Whois revealed no relevant matches other than another domain name dispute against the Respondent A search of the United States Patent and Trademark Office online database for

Complainant exhibits that a Google search using ALSTOM as the keyword always first refers to the Complainant its products or news items about the Complainant The Complainant also cites the decision in Alstom v Cameron Jackson WIPO Case No

third party use evidenced by Google search Respondent further submits that there can be no doubt that Complainant mark is descriptive The 1.9 million third-party uses of the term which car is compelling evidence of the term descriptiveness The

The Complaint also exhibits a Google search for salomon which prominently features the Complainant and its products This the Complainant says illustrates the strong worldwide reputation it has built up with consumers for its products under the

produces evidence by way of Google search results to show that rai is not a term exclusive to the Complainant The Respondent observes that the entity which shows up most on one of its searches 7 out of the first 10 is the Registro de Aceptaciones