search for Internet leads on Google conducted on September 13 2003 revealed 640000 matches 640000 websites/companies all selling Internet leads 5 iLeads clearly stands for Internet leads and it is highly unlikely that someone is going to replace

by a copy of a search on Google.com for thriftyautosales.com and which is Complaint Annex 9 that municipal address was previously listed on that web site The fourth sub-point is that on behalf of Complainant a local attorney in Atlanta was

with racing car products A Google search associating Sparco and racing cars elicited 308 results all associated to Complainant ref Annex 7 to the Complaint That Respondent operates in bad faith is evidenced by his registration of several other

as MADRID2012 or 2M12 A Google site search with the query MADRID 2012 produced no hit related to the Respondent The Respondent does not carry out any activity related to the Olympic Games or organization in the field of sports which could be

confusingly similar 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

search word Neimans in the google.com search engine the first listed hit is a link to Complainant s neimanmarcus.com website Further proof of Complainant s secondary meaning in the NEIMANS mark is evidenced in Exhibit E of the Complaint which

to the complainant s marks 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 the complainant s marks 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 the complainant s marks 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

Complainant s website at the google.com domain name in that it includes a Googhole mark that is identical in font and color to Complainant s GOOGLE design mark The disputed domain name also includes a search box that mimics the search features of

Office USPTO for the GOOGLE mark including Ser No 75 978469 filed on September 16 1999 related to computer services Complainant has also produced evidence of trademark registrations for the GOOGLE mark in various countries throughout the

that a search result in google.com on the term internet Iran MasterCard returned 23600 results with Respondent in 1st position Complainant received certification for the registration of its MASTERCARD trademark in Iran on July 17 2002 about

search for Paramount Hotel in Google on August 26 2003 revealed the existence of other Paramount Hotels having no connection with Complainants Respondent argues that it has rights and legitimate interests in the domain names in issue in that

under legal and general on Google returned the Complainant s websites in the top spots but did not list the Respondent s website in the first ten results 3 A web search is unlikely to easily find the Respondent s website Respondent s meta-tags

registrations for the GOOGLE mark issued in various countries throughout the world Complainant first used the GOOGLE mark in 1997 Complainant uses its GOOGLE mark in connection with its website hosted at the google.com domain name

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

it up in the search engine google.com and yahoo.com to see if anyone would be interested This is the truth No bad faith was involved in registering this domain name nor we had intentions in violating anyone s trademark rights nor we have

major search engines such as Google and Yahoo throw up the Complainant s site long before any reference to the Respondent s site appears Searches for Adameve do not refer to the Respondent in the first 200 links whereas the Complainant s site is

the first 150 results from a Google search of secret shopper out of an asserted several thousand the majority of which use the term secret shopper as a generic term to describe undercover shopping and customer service evaluation Exhibits F and G

s preeminent search engine Google further underscores the status of the VIDEOCALL Marks as unique identifiers of goods and services A search of the entry videocall generates a link to VideoCall s web site as the top-rated result Copies of Google