a search engine such as Google or Yahoo does not return the Respondents � website as an associated website or refer to MPT as a similar company that markets similar products 7 To demonstrate its good faith the Respondents have removed from

also notes that a general Google search for �rig � and �expert � shows the top results as relating largely to the Complainant and its products excluding the Respondent �s own website � which does not support the Respondent �s argument in this

of its site are dictated by a Google ad service Based on Google s description of such service the Panel understands that the service generates ads based on the contents of a site and does not generate content itself DECISION Having established all

in not akin to that of Google or Yahoo because Respondent has absolute control over the content of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves Complainant further asserts that Respondent has failed to establish good faith in the

for cheap vitamin on google.com does list cheapvitamins.com practically nowhere to find 94th result of search results Respondent cheapvitamin.com has been registered 7.12.1999 Complainant cheapvitamins.com has been registered 30.8 2001

for �uwe � on an advanced Google search the first 50 results of which were attached as evidence to the Response The links on the Respondent �s website that relate to the Complainant were not selected by the Respondent Those links were

poster and pals A search in google.com yield sic over 1000000 links for posterpals Most of these websites are for educational materials in all kinds of languages And these websites certainly do not all belong to the complainant One Specific sic

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

month clubs as evidenced by a Google search for fruit of the month which returned 71400 results There are a multitude of other third-party providers of such services other than the two parties to this proceeding DISCUSSION Paragraph 15 a of the

of a total of 93200 from a Google® search for PZERO and the first 200 entries out of a total of 427000 from a Google® search for ZERO PIRELLI The number of entries that have nothing to do with Complainant may be counted on the fingers of one

sic They plug a name into Google.com and expect to find the thimble they have heard is the ultimate thimble to have Since we have unofficially been the thimble lady for twenty years it is natural that they search under that name When they find

on the Internet citing a Google search that revealed 500 million third party web pages containing the term The Respondent also submits that the Complainant applied for its trademark in the U.S where the Respondent is located 1 year after the

Policy Paragraph 4 a i See Google Inc v DktBot.org FA 286993 Nat Arb Forum Aug 4 2004 finding that a complainant established rights in the GOOGLE mark through its holding of numerous trademark registrations around the world see also Microsoft

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

in which when a person uses Google keyword search ads different search results display depending on which country the user resides in according to Google policy When domain owners choose several keywords relating to their web pages the sites of

a Yellow Page search nor a Google Search produce a connection to Respondent Complainant states that Respondent is retaining the domain in hopes of selling it to a future trademark owner yet has rebuffed any attempts for Complainant to purchase

the world and according to Google Analytics Complainant s web site receives over 20 million unique visitors per month In connection with its adult entertainment services Complainant has registered the MYFREEPAYSITE.COM mark with the United

that a cursory Altavista or Google search would easily confirm the fact A portfolio of international press on the fame of ZEGNA is enclosed with the Complaint Annex 6 Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainants contend that the Respondent has

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

are provided pursuant to Google �s terms and are triggered by search requests entered by computer users Generally the listings will be for those who provide �zone diet products � or �diet products � as used in a descriptive and or generic