info com>에 500 00에 www google QualityCompany Qualitycom biz Nsdaq Nasdq Nasaq 상� � � � d b a qualcom.com gt에

into a search engine such as Google most of the websites referred to regard the Club Therefore the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the most distinctive element of the well-known marks in which Galatasaray Pazarlama holds rights c Rights or

tech meaning my technology A Google.com search of the descriptive term MYTECH revealed substantial third-party use The Respondent maintained that Complainant s mark provided no enforceable rights under the Policy with respect to the disputed

website is not even ranked on Google the search engine under the word heartagram 7 Discussion and FindingsComplainant must provide evidence of all elements of Paragraph 4 a of the Policy Since the decision to transfer or cancel a domain name may

party use on the Internet A Google.com search for complete sports betting without completesportsbetting.com.au to exclude possible references to Complainant yielded over 100 third party uses of the term The term sports betting by itself yielded

Litige OMPI No D2000-0069 Google Inc v wwwgoogle.com and Jimmy Siavesh Behain Litige OMPI No D2000-1240 Microsoft Corporation v Stoneybrook Litige OMPI No D2000-1274 Bayer Aktiengesellschaft v Yongho Ko Litige OMPI No D2001-0205 NIKE Inc v Alex

in search engines such as google.com msn.com and yahoo.com and hired Indian movie star Hrithik Roshan to act as a spokesperson for Complainant Respondent registered the disputed domain name on July 20 2001 Respondent is using the disputed

Paragraph 4 a i analysis 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

as a search pattern in the Google.com search engine results in approximately 599.000 hits while most of the first 100 of those links lead to pages dealing with the cars of Complainant including several websites run by devoted fans or Lamborghini

than 1.1 million hits from a Google.com search on teen magazine and more than 46 million for teen 2 assertedly conclusive evidence that teen magazine is a generic term for a teen magazine Thus Zuccarini asserts Primedia has no enforceable rights

as an exhibit several Google searches for HOUSELAW The search results illustrate that other than Complainant few other parties use the word HOUSELAW as part of any title or business name The Google search results are concrete evidence in

similar analysis 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

Response to the Complaint a Google search turns up Complainant s website as the very first hit Complainant is also the first listed result with Altavista and third with HotBot though the first two hits are fan sites related to Complainant To the

is important to note that the Google search conducted by the Complainant used the words legal and general and Complaints A Google search conducted without the word Complaints will not locate the disputed domain name The Panel performed such a

here to the results of a Google search not exhibited that show that University of Washington is number 1 while the University of Warsaw Univwersytet Warszawski and University of Waterloo also feature in the top 5 it is not stated where the

true and correct copy of the Google search dated November 4 2002 displaying the list of websites from which Microesoft Gallery Maker remains available is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit K A true and correct copy of a sample letter sent to the

third most valuable acronym A Google search identifies hundreds of web pages referring to attws in the context of Complainant and its licensee and a search for attws in the International Abbreviation/Acroym Database returns AT&T Wireless Services

Litige OMPI N° D2000-0069 Google Inc v wwwgoogle.com and Jimmy Siavesh Behain Litige OMPI N° D2000-1240 Microsoft Corporation v Stoneybrook Litige OMPI N° D2000-1274 Bayer Aktiengesellschaft v Yongho Ko Litige OMPI N° D2001-0205 NIKE Inc v

in the web pages The Google searches produced by the Complainant also refer to the Respondent as UBSL Under paragraph 14 b of the Rules in the absence of exceptional circumstances the Panel is entitled to draw such inferences from a party

create a distinct mark See Google Inc v Abercrombie 1 FA 101579 Nat Arb Forum Dec 10 2001 That case determined that googld.com was confusingly similar to complainant s GOOGLE mark because it has merely replaced the e in Google with a d The case