rights in the mark see also 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 worldwide Complainant s rights in its

of Complainant s mark In Google Inc v Jon G FA 106084 Nat Arb Forum Apr 26 2002 the panel found that the googel.com domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant s GOOGLE mark saying that t he transposition of two letters does not

pay-per-click marketing on Google and other major search engines and partnering with popular online coupon distributors As a direct result of these efforts and increasing recognition of the Mark Complainant enjoyed tremendous growth allowing it

is a parked website that a Google Service uses to display links to third-party websites some of which are in direct competition with Complainant DISCUSSION Paragraph 15 a of the Rules instructs this Panel to decide a complaint on the basis of

differences matter see also Google Inc v Wolfe FA 275419 Nat Arb Forum July 18 2004 The froogles.com domain name is not confusingly similar to Complainant GOOGLE mark The dissimilar letters in the domain name are sufficiently different to make it

submitted several pages of a Google search for �shoulder doc � which includes �hits � for amongst other things �Dr. Michael Kioschos shoulder doc � �Dr Allen Deutsch � Houston �s Shoulder Doc � and various forum threads where participants have

Club lists Domain Sponsor Google Skenzo and Grant Media as the PPC ad networks with which it cooperates Id 48 WebHosting.Info is a division of Direct Information Pvt Ltd d/b/a Directi a privately held web services company Both entities are

Paragraph 4 c iii see also Google Inc v Jon G FA 106084 Nat Arb Forum Apr 26 2002 Respondent unsupported statement that a potentially legitimate genealogy website will be coming soon will not suffice to demonstrate rights or interests under

used in modern English A Google search made by the Panel on the terms �all clad � between quotation marks and without a hyphen yielded several pages of results concerning only the Complainant �s goods The elements �allclad � or �all-clad � may

to Policy Paragraph 4 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

to Policy Paragraph 4 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 including Peru

pages at least of a simple Google search reveal references to no entity other than the Complainant for the word Neustar In these circumstances the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate

pages at least of a simple Google search reveal references to no entity other than the Complainant for the word �Neustar � In these circumstances the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or

between his business and Google s AdWords program is nonsensical and contrary to the prior decisions of this tribunal iv Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in wes.com on various factual situations and v Respondent registered and

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

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

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 Moreover

and �golf � as evidenced by a Google search There are at least eight other U.S registered trademarks that incorporate STX Complainant does not have exclusive rights to the common 3-letter combination The fact that STX is subject to substantial

complainant PIER 1 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

the Internet search engine Google Hits for the Complainant �s mark and company name DEUTSCHE BÖRSE are occasionally even spelled with the letter �O � in stead of its umlaut �Ö � particularly by non-German-speaking companies that are not