of search engines such as Google and ICANN �s 5-day domain name trial period as follows a on any given day Respondent registers a multitude of domain names that are misspellings of well known trademarks in order to take advantage of keying

are provided automatically by Google in response to search requests by users Respondent has no intent to target Complainant and has no control over the terms that appear on its site Respondent may fairly use descriptive or generic terms as a

been spidered and cached by Google Respondent has not provided any evidence that it has used the expression Swiss Military as a trademark No evidence has been provided that demonstrates that the expression has been used on products The

WIPO Case No D2001-0456 Google Inc v Xtraplus Corp WIPO Case No D2001-0125 Scholastic Inc v 366 Publications WIPO Case No D2000-1627 In fact the addition of the generic term �pills � adds to the likelihood of confusion as it is a suitable

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

activities A simple Google search reveals many companies in many countries that use Divex for this purpose Complainant has been infringing on the trademark of Divex AB whose trademark registration long predates Complainant �s Complainant

generated automatically by Google Domain name registrants cannot be held responsible for Google ads on their sites as individuals have no control over what advertisements Google uploads citing Admiral Insurance Services Ltd v Mr Adam Dicker WIPO

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

of the Complainant A simple Google search for �Unimin � produces 96000 results all of which refer to the Complainant and �Unimin Canada � produces 22000 results all of which refer to its Canadian subsidiary 5 The Domain Name is confusingly

mozila.org and mozzila.org GOOGLE goooooooooogle.com and YAHOO yahoooooooooo.com In conclusion Respondent cannot in good faith claim that it had no knowledge of Complainant rights in the OCWEN Marks or that he made a legitimate noncommercial or

terms of user traffic on the Google search engine than Complainant site that ranking in itself is commercially valuable to Respondent hence negating the non �profit nature of Respondent web site Moreover Respondent higher ranking on the Google

for a similar case see Google Inc v Xtraplus Corp WIPO Case No D2001-0125 Therefore the Panel concludes that the first condition under paragraph 4 a i of the Policy is satisfied B Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel finds that the

with industry leaders Google and Yahoo � Respondent contends that the links on its landing site are �provided pursuant to Yahoo or Google �s terms and are triggered by search requests entered by computer users � over which it has no control

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

as was demonstrated by the Google search attached to Complainant s reply Complainant s argument concerning third parties is misplaced since the Google search shows that there are many many companies use the term off lease in connection with

Each page includes an �Ads by Google � advertising banner for one or more third-party vendors A disclaimer appears prominently on the home page �This is NOT the official site of Tiger Schulmann �s Karate You will find them at www.tsk.com instead �

for a similar case see Google Inc v Xtraplus Corp WIPO Case No D2001-0125 Therefore the Panel concludes that the first element under paragraph 4 a i of the Policy is satisfied by the Complainant B Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel

of the Internet search engine Google for TULLET to prove that spelling TULLETT without the third �t � is a common misspelling of the word The results for TULLET display over 100 entries for the Complainant �s trade mark and services The Complainant

exhibits the result of a Google search against �Elders � The first nine entries concern the Complainant the first eight featuring links to various websites of the Complainant The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or

e.g in the search engine Google As evidence the Complainant encloses copies of Google with the search term �BB Bank Inc Osaka Japan � as Annex 16 Furthermore there is no evidence of the Respondent �s use of the domain name The domain name