Similarly Yahoo and Google offer highly effective search engines to determine the most relevant references on the Internet in response to a particular search term Searching of this kind is particularly appropriate for companies that

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

the Complainant says that a Google search on Lamborghini resulted in approximately 57 million hits The first 50 of those hits mostly linked to websites dealing with the Complainant cars whether sites concerned with the trading of cars or fan

The Respondent produced Google searches showing only four hits on a search run on the expression Oracle independent contractors compared with 5920 hits on a search run on Oracle contractor and 15400 hits on Oracle contractors The Respondent

provided pursuant to Yahoo or Google terms and are triggered by search requests entered by Internet users The Respondent says that it has no control over what terms advertisers bid on at Google or Yahoo or over what terms appear on the Respondent

by the Complainant on the Google website of the words ROC ECLERC FORSYTE revealed no reference to the use of the expression Roc-Eclerc in relation to the Respondent which further corroborates the fact that the Respondent has no legitimate

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

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 Thermo

Complainant conducted several Google searches for Meg Whitman with and without eBay which returned more than 400000 references to the Complainant The Respondent registered the disputed domain names between January 28 and March 28 2008 at which time

A mere search for ALSTOM on Google or any other search engine would have revealed the existence of the Complainant to the Respondent Indeed almost all the results of said searches conducted by the Panel using Google relate to the Complainant

with industry leaders Google and Yahoo Second the links in question are provided pursuant to Yahoo or Google s terms and are triggered by search requests entered by computer users The Respondent has no control over what terms advertisers

Marken mit dem Bestandteil GOOGLE b Verletzung Der streitgegenständliche Domainname lautet igoogle.ch Die Gesuchstellerin ist Inhaberin der Marke GOOGLE die eine originelle Phantasiebezeichnung beinhaltet Trotz ihres erst 10-jährigen Bestehens

in Saluzzo On the contrary a Google search yields the domain name piscinacomunalesaluzzosub.it this domain name is nothing but the municipal Saluzzo swimming pool website in which unlike those websites on dispute in the present proceeding it is

hits on the first page of a Google search The Panel is therefore satisfied that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith under paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy As to bad faith use by fully incorporating the INPI Marks into

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 Respondent s

the first 50 of 21.8 million Google search results and beyond for Nick Young there is no indication of any current reputation or notoriety associated with an alleged adult film performer known as Nick Young The name Nick Young is not inherently

LLC at that time Citing a Google search for nukitchen that yields many immediate hits for Power Chow and its services Complainant asserts that this mark is famous and that it has been used by Complainant and its predecessor in interest Power

Respondent argues that a Google search for the term Pluck Media reveals only 189 hits only few of which are for Complainant Respondent argues that he has a legitimate interest and rights in the domain name pluckmedia.com because Respondent is

by making arrangements with Google in February 2008 to ensure the term monster supplement store cannot be used as an AdWord or keyword search heading by any organization other than the Respondent ostensibly to avoid potential consumers confusion

further alleges that a Google South Africa search results are in no reference to Respondent Complainant argues that Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith Complainant says that Tony Jacobs the first registrant and