assertions Respondent s googlemashup.com domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant s GOOGLE mark Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the googlemashup.com domain name Respondent registered and used the

submits as an example a google.com search against Dating which shows that Complainant s website is the top sponsored link and top search result Complainant contends that it has generated extensive press coverage referring again to its

provided through the Google Adsense program over which Respondent has no control as held in Admiral Insurance Services Limited v Dicker D2005-0241 WIPO June 4 2005 and for which Respondent is not responsible As in Eastbay Corp v

sponsored search results from Google provided by DomainSponsor.com The Respondent receives a share of the revenue earned from the pay-per-click advertisements These links relate to the descriptive meaning of the disputed domain name by providing

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 Downstream Technologies LLC v Bartels System GmbH

to its alleged Internet Google listing Response Anne 14 does not distinguish it as a clear and unequivocal supporter/fan site express disclaimers are not present in the website links to official websites do not conclusively cure such absence

Policy Paragraph 4 a i See 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

been known by these terms A Google search of �bakers delight � does not return any results relating to the Respondent The Respondent was not working for the Complainant at the time he registered the disputed domain name and therefore has no

WIPO Case No D2002-0562 Google Inc v Dmitri Rytsk WIPO Case No DAU2007-0004 Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v This domain is For Sale Joshuathan Investments Inc WIPO Case No D2002-0787 HSBC Finance Corporation v Clear Blue Sky Inc and Domain

assertions Respondent s googleaddons.com domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant s GOOGLE mark Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the googleaddons.com domain name Respondent registered and used the

as a keyword in its Google online search terms which further demonstrates to this Panel that Respondent is intentionally trading off the value of Complainant s mark in bad faith The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy

Atlantic Realty business A Google search of �Trans American Trans Atlantic Realty � does not return any results relating to the Respondent The response repeatedly refers to the Respondent �planning � or �proposing � to conduct business under

Case No D2004-0784 citing Google Inc v wwwgoogle.com and Jimmy Siavesh Behain WIPO Case No D2000-1240 Casio Keisanki Kabushiki Casio Computer Co Ltd v Jongchan Kim WIPO Case No D2003-0400 Downstream Technologies LLC v Bartels System GmbH WIPO

Case No D2004-0784 citing Google Inc v wwwgoogle.com and Jimmy Siavesh Behain WIPO Case No D2000-1240 Casio Keisanki Kabushiki Casio Computer Co Ltd v Jongchan Kim WIPO Case No D2003-0400 Downstream Technologies LLC v Bartels System GmbH WIPO

as ads provided through the Google Adsense program Complainant was like all others in the United States and around the world free to purchase advertisements through Google had they so chosen and as it seemed they did The links in question are

Danone A simple search via Google or any other research engine using the keyword �danone � demonstrates that all first results relate to the Complainant �s products or news The mere addition of the word �tv � a generic term makes a link with a

search or Internet search via Google which would have taken him to the Complainant The Respondent �s failure to avail himself of these relatively simple means of investigation constitutes a gross violation of his paragraph 2 obligations 5 The

these include goooooogle.net google-network.com google-billpay.com google-db.com google-france.com etc The Respondent was also found to have been named as respondent in several UDRP proceedings see Credit Industriel et Commercial S.A v Maison

Respondent submits a Google search that indicates that other franchisees of Complainant own and use domain names that incorporate Complainant �s marks to promote the restaurants that they operate and whois printouts that demonstrate that

en un buscador de Internet Google de la página Web que dicho nombre de dominio identifica Por tanto el Experto concluye que en el presente caso el nombre de dominio ruralcanarias.com no cumple una función como marca y por tanto no procede