models The identifier �Ads by Google � is displayed on the two pages of the website furnished by the Center By express letter e-mail and fax dated June 4 2008 Complainant through its counsel sent a cease and desist and transfer demand to Respondent

n in the word insurance In Google Inc v Jon G FA 106084 Nat Arb Forum Apr 26 2002 the panel found the googel.com to be confusingly similar to the complainant s GOOGLE mark and noted that t he transposition of two letters does not create a

name from a mark 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

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 Respondent s

out by the Complainant on Google from the United States did not yield any results linking the Respondent with the expression Hotels Connect within the first 20 results although there were results corresponding to the Complainant Similarly a

incorporating pay-per-click Google advertisements on their websites at www.newtoefl.net www.toeflsample.com and www.grecenter.com These undoubtedly generate income With the purported high search Google hit-rate and traffic attracted by the

� 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

confusingly similar analysis 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

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 banner from Netfirms Google announcements and the ranking counter cannot be considered use of the domain name In many UDRP decisions it was ascertained that a passive holding of a domain name for a long period of time may be sufficient to

to 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 the complainant s GOOGLE mark where the respondent merely added common terms such as buy or

Case No D2004-0784 citing Google Inc v wwwgoogle.com and Jimmy Siavesh Behain WIPO Case No D2000-1240 Casio Keisanki Kabushiki Kaisha Casio Computer Co Ltd v Jongchan Kim WIPO Case No D2003-0400 6 Discussion and Findings Although Complainant

not all of these appear to be Google-sponsored advertising hyperlinks common to many websites 5 Parties Contentions A Complainant Complainant contends as follows Complainant has common law rights in his name by virtue of his fame as a cricketer and

to Policy Paragraph 4 a i See 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

cost-per-click advertising on Google since 2004 in marketing its beautydeals.net domain name Respondent registered its disputed domain name on June 9 1999 Previously Respondent s disputed domain name did not resolve to an active website Currently

contrary When conducting a Google search using the search terms �Silver Spit Roast � the first sponsored link is for the Respondent �s catering business The Respondent has applied for a trade mark for SILVA SERVICE word and device which shows he

Complainant and the various Google-references to �metinvest � when clicking on these Google-references the Panel has been unable to establish such relationship whether the name �metinvest � is commonly used in the former countries of the former

en la búsqueda a través de Google de la palabra �Spanair � para poner de manifiesto su notoriedad cuando aparecen miles de resultados concernientes a diversos sitios web en los que se hace referencia a la compañía aérea Asimismo alega que

in the name LAMBORGHINI and a Google search for the term �lamborghini.tv � produces 8 million results of which the first twenty are all related to Complainant and its products 3 Respondent is not using the disputed domain for a non-commercial or

has purchased adwords with Google in order to appear as a sponsored link when people are looking for the Complainant �s name or branded products B Respondent Although the Respondent has not submitted a formal Response it has implicitly replied