the Internet search engines google.com yahoo.com and askjeeves.com Complainant also points out that Respondent has been involved in other domain name disputes where panels have ordered the transfer of domain names it had registered These cases

competitor s website via the googlesyndication.com domain name which is evidence that the website uses Google s AdSense for Domains program Through this program Respondent is compensated for placing advertisements on its website DISCUSSION

�Unasi Management � using the GOOGLE search engine only disclosed references to a wide variety of domain names that have been registered by the Respondent One of the search results showed the Respondent listed in Dot.us �s website as the top most

�s largest search engine Google as entirely different search results Google actually does not even recognize the term �montecarlo � and displays �Did you mean monte carlo � at the top of the search results for �montecarlo � so you may

for the word �Geizhals � in google.de for the whole web would show the page of the Complainant geizhals.at as the number one search result The Complainant finally stresses that whereas the Respondent only holds national German rights for the

is entirely generated by Google not the operator of the website who is forbidden by the terms for using Google Adsense advertisements from interfering with Google �s selection The advertising selection algorithm employed by Google takes into

component Using an Internet Google search of the phrase American Eagle Store Complainant contends that its retail stores are often referred to by the relevant public as American Eagle Store s FINDINGS Complainant Retail Royalty Company is a

assertions Respondent s google-bg.com domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant s GOOGLE mark Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the google-bg.com domain name Respondent registered and used the

Complainant s mark see also Google Inc v Jon G FA 106084 Nat Arb Forum Apr 26 2002 finding googel.com to be confusingly similar to Complainant s GOOGLE mark and noting that t he transposition of two letters does not create a distinct mark capable

Sale WIPO Case No D2001-0094 Google Inc v Namerental.com WIPO Case No D2001-0060 News Group Newspapers Limited v Momm Amed Ia WIPO Case No D2000-1623 and AT&T Corp v Global Net 2000 Inc WIPO Case No D2000-1447 The Complainant contends that the

more than surmise 5.1.15 Google searches run by the Respondent on the expression �trivial pursuits � show more pages devoted to the original usage of the phrase than relate to the Complainant �s game Contrary to the Complainant �s claims the

� for a period of time Should Google Alexa or Archive index the domain name during that time the content of that �holding page � will or could be captured Regardless of that inconsistency the disputed domain names were still operated as a free

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

against the word �toprol � on Google and the �www.drugs.com � Internet site in support of this claim The Complainant submits that total sales of its TOPROL-XL branded product in the United States market amounts to US  1 billion to date The

precedent See for example Google Inc v Freije FA 102609 Nat Arb Forum January 11  2002 finding the addition of the generic word �sex � to the GOOGLE mark in a domain name was confusingly similar to complainant �s mark The addition of a

like are still available via Google cached web page archives as follows http //64.233.179.104/search q cache qY1YTYKw8jEJ www.exotictsbarbie.com/bio.html site www.exotictsbarbie.com exotictsbarbie&hl en http //64.233.179.104/search q cache

domain and if you check with Google the internet s premier search engine tool you can verify that the domain arubamarriott.com does not even have one link to it from any other site on the entire internet This fact alone shows that the company did

search to the top of the Google list when the term �forte communications � was searched on Google Complainant did not even attach as annexes to its Complaint the web pages to which the Google search-result entries link Bald assertions of

Inc v U S Ct 2753 P Q 2d e g google i 65 949 Assets A/K/achargergirls net and or A K

� en los directorios de google.com y google.es no aparece listado el Demandante cosa que prueba sobradamente su falta de notoriedad en el mercado de los/ las �escorts � mercado común de Demandante y Demandado La búsqueda del término