trade name A search via Google or other search engines using the key word Danone will display links relating to the Complainant �s products or news The Complainant has registered the domain name danone.com since December 1995 as shown in

Included in the protest were Google search results on the Respondent �s name and pages from some of these hits describing the individual �Mohamed Ahmed Aljarwan � as a notorious spammer under various domains including the disputed domain names The

is not listed It provides a Google search in relation to �Smith and Nephew � and �Wesley Perkins � The most obvious way to deal with this allegation would be to provide positive evidence of �Smith Nephew Trading �s � existence It could have taken

has made Yahoo and Google web searches of the Respondents William Vaughan as well as River Cruise Investments Limited which is identified by the Respondent �s information search No information was forthcoming as to the Respondents � use

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 Jonchan Kim WIPO Case No D2003-0400 B Respondent Respondent did not reply to

by the Panel using the Google search engine reveals that the top-ranked organic search result for the word �olga � leads to a website for �The Online Guitar Archive � at �www.olga.net �.4 Where a respondent �provide s evidence corroborating

active and posts a number of Google ads for which Respondent receives a commission that provide links to other third party websites that offer goods and services unrelated to the career of Mr Dempsey 2 Complainant contends that Respondent has no

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

searches are undertaken by Google and Yahoo in accordance with their terms of business and are triggered by search requests entered by Internet users who visit Respondent s site Respondent has no control over what terms for which advertisers bid

arbitration forum DECISION Google Inc v Robert Carr Claim Number FA0807001216839 PARTIES Complainant is Google Inc Complainant represented by James L Vana of Perkins Coie LLP Washington USA Respondent is Robert Carr Respondent California USA

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

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

supplies a copy of the Google search results Complainant supplies a copy of the University of Florida search results Complainant supplies a copy of the Google and University of Florida search results e mail domain name single member NEIMAN

by third parties such as Google or Yahoo Respondent has unsuccessfully argued to apply these narrow rulings to its operations in UDRP cases many times before E.g Grundfos A/S v Texas International Property Associates supra Asian World of

website currently uses the Google mail service as free e-mail It follows from the foregoing that the Respondent does not offer any media services The Respondent has never been a competitor to the Complainant It must also be pointed out that the

also that a mere search on Google or other search engines for the terms Royal Canin or Royal Canin treats would have revealed the existence of the Complainant to the Respondent In the Complainant view the disputed domain name is also being used

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

is a search engine Google.com Partnership news and shopping site Respondent never intentionally attempted to attract Internet user to his site for commercial gain or to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant s company

Arbitration Forum DECISION Google Inc v Texas International Property Associates Claim Number FA0806001212995 PARTIES Complainant is Google Inc Complainant represented by James L Vana of Perkins Coie LLP Washington USA Respondent is Texas

except for displaying a small Google search box When a search term is entered the site redirects to a Google website There is no offering by the Respondent of goods or services other than redirecting users to the services that Google provides The