Complainant It referred to Google searches for QuickBooks Intuit and various combinations of the two marks and showed that the majority of references were to the Complainant and its products and services By contrast searches for �Digi Real

on the Internet A simple Google search reveals use of the phrase � carbon footprint � by many for many different purposes and frequent use by others for the �carbon calculator � that Complainant provides SnapNames � auctions do not reveal

over the Internet using the Google search engine for the key word �orbis � generates a return of hundreds of websites the majority of which do not belong to nor are associated with the Complainant and its business 3 The consensus view of WIPO

the copies of the results of Google and Yahoo searches for AZTECA and printouts from the following 10 websites azteca.com aztecamedia.co.uk aztecarecords.com aztecahosting.com azteca.co.mx aztecafoods.com aztecamex.com azteca.net mexico-azteca.com

to the principles applying to Google Adsense These principles must also govern the Sedo parking page advertisements in this case The Respondent points out that there has never been an offer on the website under the disputed domain name or via links

s mark BEANIE BABIES see also 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

the cached version on the Google search engine indicates the domain name is �parked pending renewal � but the domain name in question nevertheless resolves to a website purporting to offer hotel services although not in the same style and

name from the mark see also Google Inc v Xtraplus Corp D2001-0125 WIPO Apr 16 2001 finding that the respondent s domain names were confusingly similar to Complainant s GOOGLE mark where the respondent merely added common terms such as buy or gear

� program operated by Google Inc the use of the Domain Name for a website promoting suppliers of other products is in itself an objectionable exploitation of the Complainant �s reputation in its mark and the operation of the Adsense program

use of this common word A Google search for �manhunt � resulted in 1.6 million third party results and �manhunt � is the subject of 3 U.S registered trademarks Respondent is in the business of financing domain names for third parties through

of the term �novatia � A Google search for the term �Novatia Studios � yields one page but Complainant was unable to find the page through a link from the �www.novatia.com � or �www.beatmixed.com � sites There is no evidence that Respondent is

that a simple search via Google or any other search engine using the keyword �Alstom � or �Alstom China � will demonstrate that the mark is connected to the Complainant �s websites or businesses Therefore it is inconceivable that the

of such bad faith is a Google Ad which appears at the top of the �Sponsored Links � when a user types in �advance america � The Respondent �s disclaimer is insufficient to remedy consumer confusion and therefore will not negate bad faith In

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 Complainant s GOOGLE mark and noting that t he transposition of two letters does not create a distinct mark capable

mark for a letter e see also Google Inc v Goog LR FA 98462 Nat Arb Forum Sept 28 2001 finding that the respondent s googlr.com domain name was confusingly similar to Complainant s GOOGLE mark because the only difference between the domain name and

first pages of results for a Google search on �sidestep � display numerous results that relate to the Complainant The Complainant holds the following registered trademarks in the United States of America Canada and the European Union MARK

he would probably have run a Google or similar search to ascertain if he did not already know who might have a special interest in the non-English expression �areva � and would therefore be a prospective purchaser.1 The likelihood is that any such

results of an international Google search for YIT all refer to the Complainant while the results of the corresponding search for �Introite � do not refer to YIT the Respondent is not known by the domain names the domain names are not being

bid on and which appear on Google �s website that a respondent is not responsible for potentially �offending content � where they have contracted with third parties such as Google or Yahoo citing Admiral Insurance Services v Dicker WIPO Case No

terms advertisers bid on at Google and thus inasmuch as Google provides the links has no control over what links appear on the Respondent �s website Therefore the Respondent is not responsible for the potentially offending contend inasmuch as a