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

engine apparently provided by Google 5 Parties Contentions A Complainant The Complainant objects to the use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent and bases its Complaint on the following grounds 1 The domain name at issue is confusingly

the disputed domain through Google Adsense and was not paying Respondent his share of the profits Respondent claims that he immediately stopped doing business with Complainant and changed the DNSs associated with the Disputed Domain Respondent

that searches on both Google and Wikipedia provide definitions of this term which the general public recognizes to describe gated planned or other types of residential communities According to Google AdWords people searched for the term

the domain name in dispute A Google search for blackberryguru.com also disclosed a link to Domain Tools WhoIs Record for blackberryguru.com at or near the top of the Google search page The DomainTools WhoIs Record for blackberryguru.com resolves

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

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 There is no intent to target Complainant but to provide

two meanings for the term Google namely GOOGLE being the search engine trade mark and brand belonging to the Complainant and google being a verb to search the Internet via the GOOGLE search engine When using the latter term the search engine

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

on the internet search engine Google Complainant has submitted copies of the searches The Domain names have been registered or are being used in bad faith Complainant has alleged that the Domain Names are still not in use Complainant has submitted

that w hen you search on Google supercrete you will find 33 pages of companies advertising supercrete products that are not affiliated with the Super-Krete Company For example www.canadiandriveway.com all the photos they are using on their

s mark ICQ see also Google Inc v Jon G FA 106084 Nat Arb Forum Apr 26 2002 finding googel.com to be confusingly similar to the complainant s GOOGLE mark and noting that t he transposition of two letters does not create a distinct mark

information advertisements by Google and links to Gnarls Barkley merchandise available from Amazon.com B Respondent Respondent says it is a long term affiliate of Amazon.com and that it obtained the disputed domain name as part of an on-going

evidence of this apart from Google search results that refer to the Complainant The Complainant has published on its website articles critical of cruise ship art auctions especially those operated by Park West Gallery with titles such as

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

trademarks including googleofip.com ibmip.com ibmofip.com and yahooofip.com Complaint Annex T 5 Parties Contentions A Complainant Complainant asserts that the ebayip.com and ebayofip.com domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant

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

mark of another A simple Google search of the terms travel and jungle would have disclosed the Complainant com and co.uk websites It is also evidence of bad faith that the Respondent used the disputed domain name to link to websites that

searching for softonic in the Google search engine many results referring to the Complainant website softonic.com appear The Complainant has asserted that the Domain Name is identical to Complainant trademarks and would confuse internet users

� sur le moteur de recherche Google fait apparaître parmi les premiers résultats un article publié sur un site Internet accessible à l �adresse �www.biotymag.com � et proposant un lien hypertexte intitulé �Cosmébio.fr � renvoyant au site