base Respondent submitted Google search results showing that numerous businesses apparently not affiliated with Complainant use the designation �r us � in their business names and/or domain names including clocksrus.com bottlesrus.com

de&q Miller Time&meta &btnG Google-Suche Es wäre seitens der Klägerin vermessen diese Einträge alle mit sich in Verbindung zu bringen Zudem gibt es aber auch noch andere Nutzer des Slogans bzw des Namens in beiden Schreibweisen die ebenfalls

complainant s 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

OUTFITTERS mark see also Google Inc v Xtraplus Corp D2001-0125 WIPO Apr 16 2001 finding that a respondent s domain names were confusingly similar to a complainant s GOOGLE mark where that respondent merely added common-term suffixes such as

search engines such as Google the first search results pages are related to Complainants � links and websites The Respondent uses the domain name in bad faith by misleadingly diverting �potential consumers of the Complainant to the website

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

has to do with the way that Google indexes Web pages even after a link is removed Google still lists the link as available in its search results Complainant adopted its current Policy to avoid returning error pages and dead links to users

else Complainant provided a Google search for the term ARTSCAPE showing that Respondent �s web page comes at a higher level than Complainant �s Complainant contends this indicates more search activity for Respondent even though artscape.com is

Policy Paragraph 4 c iii See Google Inc v Gridasov FA 474816 Nat Arb Forum July 5 2005 The Panel finds the use of domain names that are confusingly similar to Complainant s mark to attract Internet users to a website that may annoy or harm the

the links are provided by Google s AdSense program Respondent is paid by Google each time an Internet user clicks on a link provided by Google In addition to obtaining click-through revenue from the advertisements provided by Google Respondent

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 The

and points to the fact that a Google search shows numerous third party uses of the name Pepperdine University Respondent has a right to use the Domain Names at issue in this case to refer to Complainant its students and alumni and to provide

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

search engines like Yahoo and Google would have shown that MOBILCOM is a trademark The Panel thus concludes that Respondent has registered this Domain Name to prevent Complainant from reflecting its mark in the corresponding com Domain Name and

In it he states that Google contacted him last year regarding his use of googleboys.com and he explained to them his legal use of this domain and they did not pursue the issue Further Respondent alleges that the Complainant failed to cite

Paragraph 4 a i 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 see also

the USPTO and UKPO 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

rights in either name and a Google search yields more than 132 million results for the term �finances � If �finances.com � was used by Complainant at all it was as merely an email and website address and not as a trademark or service mark Rights

He exhibits an extract from a Google directory of consultants which lists �Phoenician � and a link to a website �www.phoenician.com � with the description �Beirut-based IT consulting for private and small business Services include project

customer recognition A Google search on the term �corbis � combined with the term �photo � returned nearly 4000000 results including a significant number which referred to the Trademark Mr Mitchell �s affidavit refers to the Complainant �s