has established rights A Google search for the Respondent does not reveal any websites which suggest that the Respondent has established rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name The Complainant �s representative contacted the

the Internet inputting into Google and Yahoo search engines the words �hotel hermitage monte carlo � and �hotel hermitage monaco � leads to the same results In light of the above the Panel finds that the Complainant has met the requirement of

such competitors as Yahoo and Google exploit the value of common terms by selling them as paid keyword search terms to advertisers Finally according to the Respondent the Complainant has engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking because it knows

are provided pursuant to Google s terms and are triggered by search requests entered by computer users Therefore Respondent has no control over what terms advertisers bid on at Google and what terms appear on its website There is nothing wrong

appears among other places at Google s website which identifies Complainant as the source of services offered under the MY CARD MY WAY mark The Panel finds that Complainant s exclusive and continuous use of the MY CARD MY WAY mark for over four

the Respondent purchased the Google Australia keyword �Invent Help � When Google is searched for this phrase a link is shown for the Respondent �s website royalinventions.com.au The Complainant believes that this keyword was purchased with the

faith Complainant proffered a Google search exhibit and analysis to support its public identification with the platinum plus mark Respondent Respondent asserts that the brief interval between Complainant s trademark registration and Respondent s

rights under the Policy A Google search for the phrase �sport addition � returns numerous results and the Complainant �s stores are not listed among the first two pages While Google search results are not definitive they can be quite

to Policy Paragraph 4 a i See 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

under the Policy See Google Inc v Bassano FA 232958 Nat Arb Forum Mar 8 2004 T he Panel finds that the googlesex.info domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant s GOOGLE mark under Policy Paragraph 4 a i Next Respondent pluralizes

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

via le moteur de recherche Google entre le site �www.concertandco.com � et le site �www.infoconcert.com � Il en ressortirait que le site du Requérant serait essentiellement tourné vers la France tandis que le site du Défendeur bénéficierait

It also indicates that a Google search of the term �symbility � shows only 231 non duplicative results Respondent indicates that Complainant has provided no evidence of pending trademark applications Respondent alleges that it has made

combination QFC An advanced Google search for QFC excluding quality food center and supermarket grocery pharmacy coupons and qfconline.com to avoid pages referencing Complainant yielded 437000 web pages containing the common 3-letter combination

apparently is a copy of a Google Analytics website statistics printout regarding Complainant use of the trademark and of variations of the trademark in keywords in a website of Complainant The fact that those three Appendices were the totality

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

first page of results from a Google search on �mroxygen � all relate to the Complainant The Complainant was a published author on the subject of oxygenation and made frequent media appearances on this subject long before the Respondent registered

other �s trademarks E.g Google Inc v Cencom Inc FA0603000669284 Nat Arb Forum May 8 2006 securitygoogle.com based on GOOGLE mark D2007 0459 ADT based A G Saveonmyalarm com P adtmonitoring U S adtindia adtcompanion saveonmyalarm E g

using search engines such as Google do not reveal any presence of this company using the name Complainant never stated that that Respondent had appropriated their company s name Complainant has stated that they currently own the MUSICRAIN

search engines like Yahoo or Google would have shown that CREDITKEEPER was the Complainant �s trademark.15 Paragraph 2 of the Policy implicitly requires some good faith effort to avoid registering and using domain names corresponding to