Further neither is Respondent known commonly by the name INTERMESH nor has he made any demonstrable preparations to use the impugned domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of good or services. Further, a bare perusal of the Google search results for the keyword “intermesh” substantiates Complainant's rights to the Disputed Domain Name. ...
2010-03-24 - Case Details
Hevun Diversified Corporation, NAF Claim No. FA 791657; Google Inc. v. Jennifer Burns, NAF Claim No. FA 726096; The Cheesecake Factory Inc. and The Cheesecake Factory Assets Co., LLC v. ...
2012-05-14 - Case Details
The Complainant has also provided evidence in the form of a GOOGLE search to support its claim that the word “covea” is not used by any third parties.
The Complainant submits that there is no information available on the web concerning the Respondent’s activities. ...
2011-05-24 - Case Details
Linking to websites of institutions that are active in the same field as Complainant is evidence of bad faith use. See, e.g., Google Inc. v. Forum LLC, NAF Claim No. 1053323 (finding bad faith registration and use where resolves to a commercial search engine website generating click-through advertising fees); Brink’s Network, Inc. v. ...
2011-04-28 - Case Details
For example, an image containing “ibt” has been registered as a trademark used for installation, maintenance and servicing of fire alarms and security systems for buildings and owned by Integrated Building Technologies (IBT) Inc. in the United States since 1999;1 and a word “ibt” trademark has been registered by TELUS Corporation in Canada in 2007.2 Further, in the Trade Mark TOEFL IBT, “IBT” is apparently an abbreviation of “Internet-based Test”. However, a Google search conducted by the Panel shows that “ibt” can also serve as an abbreviation of many other phrases, such as Integrated Building Technologies, International Business Training, and Integrated Business Technologies. ...
2011-06-22 - Case Details
There are a number of advertisements placed by Google Ads to third-party providers of diet programs. There is a prominent photograph and links to the website of a trainer participating in Complainant's “The Biggest Loser” television program.
...
2011-06-03 - Case Details
The Complainant has had searches conducted which have demonstrated that:
- there is no trade mark registered in the United States of America containing the word “Bathox”
- Google searches show no indication of any use by the Respondent of the term “Bathox”
- there is no evidence to indicate or in any way suggest that the Respondent is commonly known by the domain name
- there is no use of the word “Bathox” by the Respondent or Newimage Cosmetics Pty Ltd in relation to its business or products. ...
2012-03-21 - Case Details
Richard Yaming,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1097 (Richard Yaming, ); Google Inc. v. Trademark Worx LLC a/k/a Richard Yaming, NAF Claim No. 1370035 (Trademark Worx LLC a/k/a Richard Yaming, ); and LEGO Juris A/S v. ...
2012-09-27 - Case Details
However, after i) checking the online databases of the above mentioned Trademark Offices, ii) conducting searches on the GOOGLE search engine of the Complainant and its mark ELECTROLUX, ii) conducting a search of the Complainant and its mark ELECTROLUX in Wikipedia, iv) visiting a number of the Complainant’s websites, some of them shown in Annex 9 to the Complaint, and v) visiting online appliances stores, the Panel acknowledges that the well-known character of the ELECTROLUX mark can be extended until 2011.
6. ...
2011-10-20 - Case Details
In or around 2010 the Respondent registered several other descriptive domain names, such as , and , which, as in the case of the Domain Name, it uses in order to redirect users to its main website “www.mazumamobile.com.au” and to increase its rankings through Google. The Respondent therefore argues that it has a legitimate interest in using common descriptive terms to resolve to its website. ...
2011-12-20 - Case Details
The Panel notes that a cursory search for “big cartel” on each of the search engines Google and Yahoo! reveals the Complainant and its website (at www.bigcartel.com) as the top search result, with ensuing hits also largely related to various pages concerning the Complainant and its website. ...
2011-12-20 - Case Details
Dirk Bikkembergs是全球知名的时装设计师，其品牌产品在全球，包括中国和中国香港，通过推广活动和各类传媒报导，得到了广泛的认可。很多时尚网络都有对该品牌产品作了介绍和报导。
通过在Google搜索引擎上搜索“bikkembergs”一词所得出的1,750,000条结果，几乎全部指向了投诉人或其设计师Dirk Bikkembergs先生。
以“bikkembergs”文字构成或包含“bikkembergs”文字的商标已在多个国家或地区获得注册。
...
2011-12-09 - Case Details
Within its power to undertake limited factual research into matters of public record (WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions; “www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview”), the Panel has conducted a Google search for “arla”. Contrary to the Complainant’s assertion that “...ARLA is a fanciful name with a high degree of distinctiveness...”, the source “www.thinkbabynames.com” expresses the view that Arla is a girl’s name, a variant of Arlene, and is “a somewhat common first name for women ([ranking] #2625 out of 4276)”. ...
2011-01-27 - Case Details
When searching for the words “electrolux” and “replacement” on Google, 2,420,000 hits are generated.
In Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Rojeen Rayaneh,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0488, it was stated that it is a long-established precedent that confusing similarity is generally recognized when well-known trademarks are paired up with different kinds of generic prefixes and suffixes. ...
2011-01-25 - Case Details
Contrary to what the Respondent claims, when making a Google search on “resurs bank” at least the first 50 hits more or less refers to the Complainant.
Further the Complainant says that the Respondent refers to Complainant’s domain name registrations and states that “the Complainant has enough power and tools to represent its local business without any need to grab the domain name which legitimately belongs to the Respondents”. ...
2010-12-03 - Case Details
A search of the trademark registers maintained in those jurisdictions would have disclosed the application or the registrations, as would a simple Internet search on an engine such as Google have indicated the Complainant and its evidently wide use of those marks, including in the Internet itself.
...
2011-02-04 - Case Details
Promovente
Las manifestaciones de hecho y argumentos de derecho en que el Promovente apoya la procedencia de su acción son los siguientes:
(i) El Promovente tiene presencia en todo el mundo y es igualmente conocida por su acrónimo AmCham, tal y como se puede constatar al realizarse una búsqueda en un motor de búsqueda como Google;
(ii) Los registros de marca del Promovente amparan un signo distintivo idéntico o parecido en grado de confusión a los nombres de dominio en disputa;
(iii) Ni la denominación social ni la actividad del Titular guardan relación alguna con el Promovente o su marca AMCHAM y por tanto no puede decirse que el Titular sea conocido corrientemente por los nombres de dominio en disputa;
(iv) El Titular no es licenciatario de las marcas del Promovente ni tiene algún registro de marca propio sobre la denominación AMCHAM;
(v) El Titular no hace un uso legítimo y leal o no comercial de los nombres de dominio en controversia toda vez que los nombres de dominio y se encuentran desactivados, mientras que el uso del nombre de dominio no está amparado por un contrato de servicios vigente entre las partes;
(vi) El Titular no es ni ha sido nunca el legítimo propietario de los nombres de dominio en controversia pues tan solo fungió como administrador de los mismos en virtud de un contrato que en ningún lugar establece la titularidad de aquellos en favor del Titular y que estuvo vigente hasta septiembre de 2009, por lo que la retención de los nombres de dominio en disputa por parte del Titular es ilegal e ilegítima;
(vii) El uso del nombre de dominio es deshonesto y provoca graves perjuicios al Promovente siendo que el portal de Internet respectivo dejó de ser actualizado desde septiembre de 2009 y consecuentemente los visitantes a dicho portal son expuestos a información que no está puesta al día ni es supervisada por el Promovente;
(viii) El Titular pretende mantener vivos los nombres de dominio en disputa como herramienta de extorsión para exigir al Promovente un adeudo improcedente, reteniendo injustificadamente una propiedad que no le corresponde;
(ix) El nombre de dominio fue registrado de mala fe por el Titular luego de que el Promovente le notificara su intención de dar por terminado el contrato de prestación de servicios que tenían celebrado, al tiempo que dicho nombre de dominio también se ha usado de mala fe por el Titular de acuerdo a la doctrina del mantenimiento pasivo;
(x) El Titular ya no tiene una relación comercial con el Promovente y cualquiera que haya tenido nunca involucró la cesión de los derechos de propiedad de los nombres de dominio y a favor del Titular, por lo que desde el momento en que la relación contractual terminó, el Titular comenzó a hacer uso de mala fe de dichos nombres de dominio;
(xi) El Titular usa sin autorización el nombre comercial y las marcas registradas del Promovente en el sitio Web vinculado al nombre de dominio , haciendo creer a los visitantes de dicho sitio que el Promovente sigue estando involucrado en el contenido del portal de referencia cuando ello no es cierto;
(xii) Al haber concluido la relación contractual entre las partes, el Titular dejó de tener interés legítimo en retener y usar los nombres de dominio en controversia por lo que cualquier uso posterior de estos que haga suponer la subsistencia de una relación ya inexistente entre el Promovente y el Titular debe reputarse de mala fe en aplicación de C. & A. ...
2010-10-11 - Case Details
Any supposed bona fide use is barred due to the unfair advantage obtained by the Respondent. Google Inc. v. Billa Rajinikar Reddy,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1390.
Registered and Used in Bad Faith
After being notified of the Complaint, the Respondent has engaged in reprehensible actions by posting unlawful, abusive and defamatory comments concerning the Complainant and the Complainant´s representative, serving to demonstrate his bad faith and total disrespect towards the parties, this procedure and the Center itself. ...
2012-06-18 - Case Details
However, the Panel conducted quick searches on the search engine Google about Complainant and its trademark ARLA. The search results show that the trademark ARLA has indeed a high level of recognition around the world, also confirmed by the UDRP cases handled by the Center involving domain names confusingly similar to it and included as Annexes 9 and 10 to the Complaint. ...
2012-06-29 - Case Details
Şikâyet Eden ayrıca daha önce kendisi tarafından kullanılan bir alan adının kaydının düşmesini bekleyerek daha sonra kendi adına tahsis eden Şikâyet Edilen’in bu eyleminin kötü niyeti tek başına ispatladığını belirtmiştir.
Şikâyet Eden Google arama motoruna Yılmaz Özdil ismi yazıldığında ihtilaflı alan adının beşinci sırada yer aldığını dolayısı ile de bu ibareyi gören İnternet kullanıcısının söz konusu İnternet sitesinin Yılmaz Özdil’e ait olduğunu düşünebileceğini ve kullanıcıları yanıltabileceğini ifade etmiştir.
...
2012-06-26 - Case Details