is contradicted by a simple Google search of printers ink which results in numerous ads and entries for inkjet products FINDINGS The Panel finds the domain name at issue to be confusingly similar to Complainant s mark The Panel need not make any

that the general use of a Google search itself seems to postdate the registration of the disputed domain name As noted above the disputed domain name was first registered in 1996 Google Inc was first founded as a company in 1998 The Complainant

It also points out that a Google search for �Invisalign � results in 1870000 hits and that the first results are only related to the Complainant The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the INVISALIGN

a domain name without a prior Google search seems to me to be wilful blindness and indeed such an allegation has not been made A Google search as Respondent s material itself well documents shouts out the name and interest of Complainant I would

the top position both in the Google.com and Google.ca search results for a search based on the keyword �cyberpresse � alone throughout the web as a whole and that it has occupied that position for several years including when the Respondent first

2008 The Complainant used Google AdWords to promote its website at �www.involvegroup.com � from January 2007 spending roughly £200 per month The Complainant �s clients include a number of well-known public companies The Domain Name was

If you search after toto in google.com you will find thousands of sites which talk about lotto bingo and toto Respondent contends that the word toto is a part of thousands of URLs Nearly all of them have nothing to do with Complainant Nobody can

is generic mentioning that a GOOGLE search on the term yielded 200000 hits and identifying a number of eBay offerings under this rubric This is balanced unfavorably against Complainant s evidence that the expression Gettysburg flag is not a

any secondary meaning The Google searches submitted by Respondent were carried out incorrectly Respondent searched against car wash for sale instead of one word carwashforsale A Google search properly done against the single word carwashforsale

Name was entered in the Google search engine The Respondent contends that the Domain Name cannot be regarded as registered in order to prevent the Complainant reflecting its mark in a corresponding Domain Name and that it has not engaged in a

names as revealed in a simple Google search which suggests that their chief focus is not on their own �pc plus project � but rather the registration of domain names which in all the other circumstances is at the least indicative of bad faith For

provided through the Google Adsense program The Respondent states Complainants were like all others in the United States and around the world free to purchase advertisements through Google had they so chosen As one Panel has held �The

� website made on a Google thread at �soc.genealogy.autralia nz � On that thread a particular customer of the Respondent appears to be complaining about the fact that having bought membership with the Respondent that provides �unlimited

A search for �BB � on Google yields over two million hits and a review of the first 100 hits i.e 10 Google results pages shows no references to the Complainant The search turned up numerous other businesses that use the designation �BB �

of the first results for a Google search for �wsoy � are related to the Complainant both in the international version of Google and in the Italian version of Google The Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted any of the Respondents

Domain Name and that a simple Google search did not reveal any websites which suggest the same The Complainant further asserts that the Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name to attract third parties to advertise on the Respondent �s Website

the well-known search engine Google � As can be seen from such copy which has been attached to the Complaint and provided to the Panel 6 of the 10 initial results exhibited link the Complainant to the commercial initiatives that he carries out

have an interest in and a Google search engine interface that possibly is a source of revenue for the Respondent The name �Facebook � or �Face book � would seem to have no real value to the Respondent except as a means of obtaining advantage

legitimate interests in the googletrademark.com googletrademark.net googletrademark.org googleearthtrademark.com and googlecorporation.net domain names Respondent registered and used the googletrademark.com googletrademark.net googletrademark.org

result search engines like Google and Yahoo I explain why this is so in some detail below in this Dissent Why The Initial Interest Confusion Concept Is Wrong In Principle Assuming that the reader has carefully read the facts and the detailed