companies such as AOL and Google iii Respondent s use and registration of the Domain Names meet the bad faith element of Section 4 b i of the UDRP because Respondent registered the Domain Names primarily to sell rent or otherwise transfer them

what terms advertisers bid at Google and what terms appear on the website UDRP Panels have recognized that the domain name holder is not responsible for potentially offending content where they have contracts with third parties such as Google or

of the disputed domain names googlecheckout.com googlematching.com and googleoutdoors.com is confusingly similar to Complainant GOOGLE Marks inasmuch as each of these names incorporates Complainant mark GOOGLE Hence for each of these names

similar to the mark In Google Inc v Goog LR FA 98462 Nat Arb Forum Sept 28 2001 the panel found the respondent s googlr.com domain name confusingly similar to Complainant s GOOGLE mark because the only difference between the domain name and

covering until June 16 2009 A Google search for �letigen � on June 16 2006 showed approximately 46000 hits The Respondent registered the domain name lepigen.com on August 19 2004 The disputed Domain Name does not resolve into a website but is

until June 16 2009 A Google search for �letigen � on June 16 2006 showed approximately 46000 hits The Respondent registered the Domain Name letigen.com on October 7 2003 The disputed Domain name does not resolve into a website but is

Tribune August 1 2006 5 A Google search on �betonsports � produces some 1.75 million �hits � at least the first tier of which examined by the Panel all refer to the Complainant BETonSPORTS plc and its online gambling business in articles and

info 4 b 3 c 2 a 5 S A �www google fr 15 « info» No  D2005-0728 i d� arbitrage l� OMPI �enregistrement le a s

since November 1999 Further a Google search shows that Respondent �s Australian domain name doteasy.com.au is ranked 5 in Australia and 10 in the continent of Oceana / Australia for average server speeds This Respondent says evidences how well

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

have advertised repeatedly on Google we have a Yahoo group with 170 members we have a mailing list of over 700 people we have a blog and we are constantly working to improve and update our website As to the allegation that we are not commonly known

distributing content from Google Yahoo and Overture and because Respondent was not aware of Complainants or their mark at the time of Respondent s registration of the disputed domain name Finally Respondent asserts that its registration and use

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

convincing evidence based on Google searches that �xzibit � is almost exclusively associated on the Internet with the Complainant and the products and services identified by the XZIBIT mark The Panel concludes from the record as a whole that the

advertisements provided by Google AdWords Revenue of up to US 1.50 per click is generated to the domain name owner 5 Parties � Contentions A Complainant Complainant says Respondent had actual or constructive notice of Complainant �s trademark

argument lies in Respondent s Google search and his attempt to use the result to exclude Complainant from using the Policy merely because third parties have websites that are triggered by the search for club rewards Complainant notes that on the

upon famous marks including Google and Yahoo See Annex I This pattern of cybersquatting violates Policy Paragraph 4 b ii g Based upon 1 the fame of the AOL marks 2 AOL s trademark registrations 3 Respondent s use of the domain names to route to

sur le moteur de recherche Google à partir du mot �défiscalisation � fait apparaître l �entreprise du requérant dans les premières références Le requérant en déduit que le défendeur ne pouvait ignorer le site �www.defiscalisation.com �

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

parues sur le site Google en octobre 2005 le nom de domaine zenflowers.com n �était pas utilisé mais était détenu par un cybersquatter qui avait acheté le nom de domaine peu après la parution du livre �Zen Flowers � Le requérant