affiliated with the Google AdSense Domain Program and providing links to several companies in competition with Complainant This conduct clearly fits within the description of Policy paragraph 4 b iv �by using the domain name you have

s NETSTER mark 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

or search for the site at Google.com � Entering �acumed.com � into the Google search engine results in a listing for �AcuMed.Com � at �www.sonic.net/acumed/ � That page is entitled �Acupuncture Oriental Medicine & Jujitsu Information � and

be demonstrated by a simple Google search it has rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as the Respondent uses it as an advertising portal that provides access to a broad range of services In addition the fact that

are various links provided by Google that concern blogs and blogging No legitimate content is presented on the site On August 2 2006 a cease and desist letter was sent by Complainant s Intellectual Property Administrator via certified mail to

being demonstrated by a Google search of the meta tag BuyPEP.com which is a federally registered trademark owned by Respondent for its Precision Engineered Products brand of goods which shows a link to the website of EPS in that regard see a

mark with the USPTO see also Google Inc v DktBot.org FA 286993 Nat Arb Forum Aug 4 2004 finding that the complainant had established rights in the GOOGLE mark through its holding of numerous trademark registrations around the world Respondent s

months The Respondent cites Google and Alexa sources counter-indicative to the Complainant s figure of 5000 daily visits and suggests that the Complainant s website is infrequently visited and not at all well known In its Additional Submissions

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

the words �ara shoes � in Google The first result shown is the Complainant �s web page at the ara-shoes.de address None of the first 100 hundred results of Google show the Respondent �s web or any link to it On the other hand when a Google

advertisements on it from Google �s AdSense program Incidentally my earnings from the site advertisements totaled only USD 0.64 My plan was to operate the site as an informational site and make money from advertisements just as a newspaper

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

provided information through Google Analytics to show that a significant number of the referring sources for the Domain Name s website are search engines and websites that reference the site for information about the Chaco Canyon area and the

l in Complainant s mark In Google Inc v Jon G FA 106084 Nat Arb Forum Apr 26 2002 the panel found the googel.com domain name to be confusingly similar to the complainant s GOOGLE mark and further noted that the transposition of two letters did

Center EXPERT DECISION Google Inc v Mr Cool Company Case No. DCH2006-0022 1 The Parties The Claimant is Google Inc Mountain View California U.S.A represented by Schellenberg Wittmer Zurich Switzerland The Respondent is Mr Cool Company La

pages according to the Google searcher and at 1.42 million pages according to the Yahoo searcher The Complainant �s name has been developed through the media and international companies On October 27 2005 the Complainant applied in Argentina

of Policy Paragraph4 a i See Google Inc v DktBot.org FA 286993 Nat Arb Forum Aug 4 2004 finding that the complainant had established rights in the GOOGLE mark through its holding of numerous trademark registrations around the world see also Thermo

merely adds the term kills In Google Inc v Xtraplus Corp D2001-0125 WIPO Apr 16 2001 the panel found the respondent s domain names to be confusingly similar to the complainant s GOOGLE mark where the respondent merely added common terms such as buy

Its expenditure with Google in publicity has been over � 600000 with further press and print media advertising to an estimated cost of over � 300000 from January 2005 to July 2006 Its activities have achieved substantial press coverage not

website that features Google advertisements and links to a variety of websites related and unrelated to Complainant DISCUSSION Paragraph 15 a of the Rules instructs this Panel to decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and