intentionally set up its Google search to exclude all hits that also include e-switch so that Respondent s search results intentionally removed references to Complainant E-Switch Thus Respondent s results fail to show the truth that Google

�pursuant to Yahoo or Google �s terms � 5 Parties � Contentions A Complainant i Domain Name Identical or Confusingly Similar to Complainant �s Mark Complainant contends that it is in the business of selling dental supplies and has sold

that a search on the Google search engine for nextag.travel yielded no results The Panel finds that the record as a whole does not support the inference that Respondent is or was commonly known by the disputed domain name Therefore the

No FA791657 November 13 2006 Google Inc v 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 Vinscani WIPO Case No

internet browsers like google to find our telephone numbers and addresses They have been responding to the phone calls from our customers as if they were real hayrioğlu � � On the basis of these contentions Complainant seeks transfer of the

Arbitration Forum DECISION Google Inc v YiWuShi Shuangfeng Jixie Youxian Gongsi c/o Huang Jian Claim Number FA0803001159972 PARTIES Complainant is Google Inc Complainant represented by James L Vana of Perkins Coie LLP Washington USA Respondent

the functionality of the Google Custom Search Engine The Complainants speculate that the purpose of this was to participate in Google �s AdSense for Search program which places contextually relevant advertisements on the Custom Search Engine

Secretary of State website A Google search of the respondent s corporate name returns solely the Disputed Domain Respondent has the burden to show concrete evidence that it has rights or legitimate interests in the Dispute Domain once Complainant

of Respondent �s actions the Google search engine index incorrectly considers Respondent �s new site to be the continuation of Complainant �s site When Complainant returned to the internet under a new name the Google index considering Complainant

with industry leaders Google and Yahoo 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 advertising

fields He also notes that Google searches performed on February 7 2008 for �earl g graves sr � and �earl g graves � revealed over 2000 results and 22000 results respectively Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly

fields He also notes that a Google search performed on February 12 2008 for �earl g graves jr � revealed over 1200 results and another on February 7 2008 for �earl g graves � revealed over 22000 results Complainant contends that the disputed

� is typed into �the Google window within the browser header � Respondent �s counsel states that �I do not know how this came about and do know that this process does not always occur � Respondent contends that he never denied any

on the website � Ads by Google the content of which the Respondent claims is controlled by Google �s AdSense and many if not most of which are in fact for the Complainant �s own services The Panel considers it preferable not to explore in

a Romanian language and Google powered search engine page 6 Parties � Contentions A Complainant 6.1 The Complainant �s factual and legal contentions can be summarised as follows Identical or Confusingly Similar 6.2 The Complainant claims to

trademarks as a cursory Google search would easily confirm They have however submitted a portfolio of international press clippings to demonstrate the fame of Zegna 5 Parties � Contentions A Complainants 5.1 The Complainants contend that the

of a simple search via Google or any other search engine using the keyword Danone would surface links to the Complainant s website and other sites which relate to the Complainant s products or news The mere addition of the letter r to the

the Respondent exhibits a google.com search against the 3-letters �kpn � which lists KPN Travels India Ltd ahead of the Complainants both using the KPN acronym 5.B.3 Registered and Used in Bath Faith 5.B.3.1 The Respondent registered the domain

used in bad faith see also Google Inc v Bassano FA 232958 Nat Arb Forum Mar 8 2004 holding that the respondent s use of the googlesex.info domain name to intentionally attract Internet users to a website featuring adult-oriented content

�Site Partners � an �Ads by Google � sponsored search box and a large link labeled �Public Service Ads by Google � There is a copyright notice at the foot of the page in the form �© 2008 udaykotak.com � The Complainant sent the Respondent a