provides evidence of a Google search against the term FNAC MUSIQUE the results of which do not mention Fizbin Consultants In the circumstances it claims that the only use that the Respondent has made of the Domain Name is the �attachment �

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Google Inc v Mohammad Jabbari Case No DIR2005-0001 1 The Parties The Complainant is Google Inc Mountain View California of United States of America represented by Rose A. Hagan United States of America The

4 a i of the Policy 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

name in conjunction with Google s AdSense for Domains program which compensates website owners for the placement of Google advertisements on their web pages DISCUSSION Paragraph 15 a of the Rules instructs this Panel to decide a complaint on

emphasis added A Google search on January 23 2005 for Twinkles retrieved 93600 pages b Respondent Has All Rights and Legitimate Interests in Respect of the Domain Name that is the Subject of the Complaint Complainant Twindent AB is a

search engines AltaVista or Google would easily confirm It indicates that this fact is also reflected in numerous international press articles which it encloses as evidence Annex 5 Pursuant to the Complainant �Moncler � winter sporting clothes

as a cursory AltaVista or Google search under �prada � would easily confirm and as it is shown by copy of representative international press enclosed in the Complaint Annex 8 That PRADA is a household name for millions of consumers and

 Turner L C No  D2000-0596 google � S p A pomelatto Q c o d b a and or p k C D A AT

a search through the Google.com web site for any web pages that contained both the terms �mess.com � and �mess.net � That search yielded no hits Counsel then performed a second Google search for both the terms �Mess Enterprises � and

on a browser such as Google results in many websites relating to the pornographic content promised in the �www.adraianaventis.com � website It is the Panel �s conclusion that the domain name at issue is used for the purposes of a working

s MSN mark see also Google Tech Inc v Internet Hispano S.L FA 176533 Nat Arb Forum Sept 16 2003 finding that googleporno.com is confusingly similar to Complainant s GOOGLE mark see also Cingular Wireless LLC v V T X Inc D2003-0446 WIPO

du moteur de recherche Google France qui relève de très nombreuses références au terme Artcurial dont la quasi-totalité concernent les activités de celui-ci Le Requérant estime que l �enregistrement et l �utilisation du nom de domaine

automatically generated by Google and that it has no control over the content of these advertisements although he acknowledges that he received click-through revenue from them 6 Discussion and Findings In accordance with paragraph 4 a of the

Complainant s marks 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

name and 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

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 Complainant s GOOGLE mark and noting that t he transposition of two letters does not create a distinct mark capable

the updaddy.com website with Google 5 Parties � Contentions A Complainant �s contentions i Complainant contends that its registrations of the Trademarks are valid and subsisting iii Complainant contends that the Domain Names are confusingly

can be found by a simple Google search and clearly bears much of the blame for the trouble and expense to which the Complainant has been put The Panel regrets therefore that the Policy contains no provisions for an award of costs or other

domain name from the 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

a search for �absolut � in Google The Respondent further states that the trademark ABSOLUT is described in Complainant �s Annex 11 to the Complaint as follows �The mark consists of the stylized term ABSOLUT shown in the color red � Applicant