links provided by Yahoo or Google triggered by search requests entered by computer users Respondent has no control over what terms advertisers bid on at Google or Yahoo nor over what terms appear on its websites Complainant is attempting to both

that he has no control over Google s links He argues that his advertising is related to running and triathlons not to businesses similar to Complainant s C Additional Submissions Complainant contends Respondent did not show Complainant knew of

the �Adsense � program from Google Inc for which he automatically receives fees and commissions Those links lead to several websites where competitor products are provided related to weight loss treatment Previous WIPO UDRP Panels have considered

advertisements and included Google Ad-Links to third party websites including websites of third parties providing hospitality services in Dubai in competition with the Complainant Immediately after the original Complaint was served on the First

of such domain names See Google Inc v Smith Smithers Nat Arb Forum Dec 7 2006 finding googleforums.com confusingly similar to the trademark Google see also Am Online Inc v Neticq.com Ltd D2000-1606 WIPO Feb 12 2001 finding that the addition of

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

listed first in searches on Google or Yahoo on the search terms �Chelsea and Westminster Hospital � or �Chelwest � The Respondent submits that he has a right or legitimate interest in respect of the Domain Name since his website merely criticizes

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

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

�s mark Further even a simple Google search for that combination gives its top results as relating to the Complainant �s websites This evidence suggests that the Respondent had the Complainant in mind when it registered the disputed domain name

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

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

links are the words �Ads by Google � While previous panels have noted that so-called advertising revenue arrangements may in certain circumstances be consistent with a legitimate interest in a disputed domain name their use does not in this Panel

of the mark in commerce 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

search result on the Google search engine for the phrases �gun broker � and �gun auction � The GunBroker Site features more than 200000 auction listings for firearms parts and accessories and attracts more than 2 million unique site

search engines such as Google or Yahoo generate results that mostly link to the second Complainant when entering the wording �Cic Securities � By directing Internet users to the Respondent �s webpage displaying several links to third party

and real estate used 2 All Google sites listed in response to MSN real estate relate to Complainant s site 3 Respondent did not reply to accusations of registration and use in bad faith implying guilt FINDINGS The Panel finds for the Complainant

mala fide than if you did a Google search on the words Sports Beans The site that Respondent hosts uses the Google adwords program to determine the advertisements based on the keywords in the domain name which is completely out of Respondent s

world.com D2006 0297 0 google.com google.org pay per click D2003 1002 D2000 0253 D2004 0668 0709 D2005 0012 0201 D2002 0561 0226 cyber squatting 1493 1279 S A eliteelegance net elitemodels org China-Channel com �www elitemodel fr

interest confusion � when a Google search for �pga2012 � reveals seven responses none of which are related to golf Finally Respondent points out other entities that use an acronym similar to �PGA � Plant Growers of Australia �www.pga.com.au �