to 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

Requérant par la société Google dans le cadre de son programme AdSense C �est dans ce contexte que le Requérant a engagé la présente procédure à l �encontre du Défendeur 5 Argumentation des parties A Requérant Le Requérant soutient en

referred to a search via the Google search engine for calcar which revealed 645000 hits an overwhelming number of which do not refer to Complainant This search also contained references to so-calcarshows.com for Southern California car shows

trademark of another A simple Google search would have revealed at once that �Isoschaum � is the name of a product commercialized by the Complainant which should in turn have led the Respondent to conduct a trademark search In view of the above the

terms advertisers bid on at Google and what terms appear on its website Respondent registered the domain name rbsus.com because it believed it was a descriptive acronym to which no party had exclusive rights The principle that the mere ownership

network jointly submitted by Google and Complainant on February 21 2006 The Disputed Domain Names were registered with the Registrar on February 23 2006 and February 25 2006 respectively just days after the venture between Google and Complainant

Forum Nov 13 2006 see also Google Inc v Burns FA 726096 Nat Arb Forum Aug 16 2006 see also Cheesecake Factory Inc v Say Cheesecake D2005 �0766 WIPO Sept 12 2005 see also Napster Inc v Vinscani D2005 �0531 WIPO July 19 2005 see also Caesars Entm

where links are provided by Google and outside the Respondent �s control and this has been found by Panels to be legitimate The Respondent commenced use of the disputed domain name before notice of this dispute The mere fact that the Respondent

then provided a link to a Google search for vsat system � On September 29 2007 the Respondent sent a further email stating that �I am working at Dexar DEXAR is telecommunication company in Turkey Dexar gives infrastructure solutions in

name system Even a simple Google search for the combination �Nature Decouvertes � shows all the top results reverting to websites that relate to the Complainant and its mark as well as prior cases successfully brought by the Complainant under

site apparently powered by Google that states �You are seeing this page because the current domain is not configured in the current set of name servers or your domain is being parked This is usually just a temporary error while the domain is

entering �Zermatt � into the Google search engine yields over 4 million hits Complainants � arguments if accepted would make it increasingly difficult for anyone to promote Zermatt or refer to it in any manner The Domain Name zermatt.com does not

relating to the Complainant A Google search shows that the vast majority of hits concern the Complainant being either direct links to the Complainant website or to Complainant distributors current and former employees mention in trade press etc

says that it has run a Google search on the name �Beroca Holdings � and that while the search produced various hits relating to domain name disputes involving the Respondent and its bad faith registration of domain names the search produced

Policy Paragraph 4 b iv See 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

this personally by a Google search 5 Parties � Contentions A Complainant The Complainant contends that the requirements of paragraph 4 a of the Policy are made out as follows The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade

shot of the results of a Google search which the Complainant performed on the name �Deveraux and Deloitte � which include amongst those results an entry for the Complainant under that trade name According to the Complainant through negligence

Arbitration Forum DECISION Google Inc v David Miller Claim Number FA0708001067791 PARTIES Complainant is Google Inc Complainant represented by James L Vana of Perkins Coie LLP 1201 3rd Ave Suite 4800 Seattle WA 98101 Respondent is David Miller

for example it conducted a Google search for �yellow pages � on the European Association of Directory Publishers website resulting in 1610 returns However it is obvious that widespread use or more accurately incidences which show up on a Google

networks of partners such as Google with the aim of automatically displaying potentially relevant sponsored advertising links on the parking website The parking website also includes a search box in which a site visitor may type a search query In