advertise on the site through google adsense � Complainant submits that Respondent is using domain names in dispute that incorporate �elite � and �elite model � intentionally seeking to exploit user confusion by diverting Internet users away from

name in the world A Google search with the word �attica � produced about 6720000 results and the word �bank � about 962000000 results In the world �s most important trademark database the United States Patent and Trademark Office there

competing products See e.g Google Inc v wwwgoogle.com and Jimmy Siavesh Behain WIPO D2000-1240 finding bad faith in respondent s use of the disputed domain name to direct Internet users to respondent s competing website Fatbrain.com Inc v IQ

site has a high ranking on Google The Complainant uses ballygowan.ie to reflect the Irish background of its commercial product When the disputed domain name was registered the Complainant did not have the international marketing presence it now

has a sponsored link on Google which appears right beside a link to Complainant �s website Complaint Exhibit E Bad faith The same factual allegations Complainant uses to support its charges that Respondent �s use of the dispute domain name is

arbitration forum DECISION Google Inc v Cencom Inc Claim Number FA0603000669284 PARTIES Complainant is Google Inc Complainant 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View CA 94043 Respondent is Cencom Inc Respondent 2800 Northup Way 200 Bellevue WA

on the Internet see also 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

on Yahoo & MSN & second on Google � This email suggests that the Respondent was interested in whether his site effected investment in the Complainant and noted that it had apparently achieved its purpose Further the Respondent in this email

results The domain name googlepack.com is confusingly similar to Complainant s GOOGLE mark Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in googlepack.com Respondent registered and used the googlepack.com in bad faith Respondent

� similar to those offered by Google while the Complainant �s search engine merely directs internet visitors to its paid advertisers Accordingly the Respondent argues that there is no likelihood of confusion The Respondent denies that it registered

mark As support it attaches a Google search indicating at least Google recognition of its mark Further as evidence of an interest in the mark it shows a registration of the corporate name in the State of California various press releases certain

in search engines such as Google or Yahoo which weigh the content of domain names in formulating the search results The websites advertised on the website to which the subject domain name resolves do not make any reference to SPICE or SPICE

engine affiliated with the Google AdSense Domain Program which provides links on a variety of topics related to the Complainant �s activities Thus the Panel understands that in using the domain names the Respondent has intentionally attempted to

LEGO products as there are Google ads listed at each side This means that the disputed domain name is being used in order to attract visitors for the commercial gain of the domain holder The Complainant submits that as the LEGO trademark is

to the Respondent A Google search failed to reveal any websites that indicated that the Respondent had any rights or legitimate interest in the domain name The domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith It directs internet

An advanced search on the Google.com search engine for NRF � yielded over 3110000 web pages containing the common 3-letter combination � 6 Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4 a of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove that i the domain

online dating website Upon a Google search of the terms American singles Respondent claims it found over 1.6 million uses of the phrase mostly in connection with online dating services Respondent also provides evidence of a prior Policy decision

Complainant references a Google search conducted in 2005 Complainant argues that Respondent acted in bad faith by registering the domain name despite actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant �s rights and cites the following decisions

actual consumer confusion A Google search of the word �synagis � returns about 208000 results The disputed domain names do not appear anywhere in the first twenty pages of results The Panel finds it unlikely that an Internet searcher looking for

in an apparent venture with Google who is the one profiting from Respondent s ownership of the domain Early in May 2005 prior to registering the domain Respondent was in communication with at least one member of the Enterprise corporate staff