made to a print-out from a Google search for the term �blundstone � copy annexed to the Complaint The search results reveal the first and most prominent entry being that of the Respondent The entry appearing at the top of the page is a sponsored

s AIM EXPRESS mark See 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

through search engines like Google whereas if someone was to make a search for the term OxyClean the complainant or its affiliates would monopolize the search results This is further enhanced by the Complainants use of the actual term OXYCLEAN on

4 a i is satisfied 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

the advertising programs of Google and Overture two of the largest pay-per-click providers DISCUSSION Paragraph 15 a of the Rules instructs this Panel to decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with

mind of the consumer 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

be likely to cause confusion Google Inc v Mohammad Jabbari WIPO Case No DIR2005-0001 Those circumstances are present here The Complainant has accordingly established this element 7 Decision For all the foregoing reasons in accordance with

when performing searches on Google Yahoo and Lycos with keywords such as �La Caixa � �Caixa trust � and �Caixabank � With these search engines the website of the Complainant appears as the first result and services associated therewith appear as

name which is operated by Google as part of the AdSense program which pays registrants of domain names who direct Internet users to search pages operated by Google s website at the oingo.com domain name Additionally Complainant has not licensed

WIPO Case No. D2000-1571 Google Inc v Namerental.com and Leonard Bensonoff WIPO Case No. D2001-0060 Telstra Corporation Limited v Kandasamy Mahalingam WIPO Case No. D2000-0999 and Pfizer Inc v Enamecorp.com WIPO Case No. D2001-0791 The

slims � performed on the Google search engine on January 26  2005 yielded 101000 results wherein the first ten refer exclusively to VIRGINIA SLIMS cigarettes including in the first one the mention of 1968 as the introduction date 5 Parties �

ranked No 9 by International Google Zeitgeist in the UK for popular queries The website was ranked no 1 and recorded 151.7 million page impressions through the periods January 2003 March 2003 and May 2003 The website was ranked within the top

be submitted to Yahoo and Google shortly Thought it may interest you and your client � The email included a link to a page on �www.geocities.com � which Complainant printed and submitted with the Complaint The page advertised

major portals such as Yahoo Google AOL and MSN resulting in more than 30 billion Internet impressions in one fiscal year Complainant contends that the Domain Name is virtually identical to its 1-800-FLOWERS.COM trademark in that it merely deletes

� The panel also referred to Google Inc v Jon G FA 106084 Nat Arb Forum April 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

of the word hotels See 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

Charles region of Louisiana A Google search confirms that southwest Louisiana is known as the Lake Area Respondent has also put forth a plausible explanation for retaining the laol.net domain name even though the entities associated with its use

�CRYSTAL BACCARAT � using the Google search engine The search results Annex O to the Complaint show commercial and editorial links the great majority of which concern the Complainant �s products described or offered for sale on the Internet It is

F in Complainant s mark See 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

results of a search using the Google �� search engine and the terms option one lending Respondent �s search solely using the Google �� search engine does not support the broad assertion that Complainant �s website does not �come up when any kind of