The Panel notes this is the registration for the mark HISTORIC HOTELS OF AMERICA.
2 The Respondent asserts that a Google search for “historic hotels” yielded over 660,000 third party pages containing the term, and notes several other domain names that incorporate this term, including (Istanbul Historic Hotels), (Historic Hotels of the Rockies), and (Historic Hotels of Europe).
3 The Complainant also asserts protectable rights in “Historic Hotels”, apparently based on a claim of common law trademark rights in this term. ...
2005-08-22 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant asserts that:
(a) the HOLIDEX System is well-known throughout the
world;
(b) in addition to its various trademark registrations,
Complainant has acquired trademark rights in HOLIDEX by virtue of its long and
continuous use of the HOLIDEX Mark;
(c) the HOLIDEX Mark enjoys significant goodwill and
is famous as a consequence of continuous, widespread and exclusive promotion
and use of the HOLIDEX Mark by Complainant and its predecessor-in-title;
(d) the Domain Name is virtually identical and confusingly similar to the HOLIDEX Mark;
e) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name because:
(i) Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant, is not a licensee of Complainant, and is not authorized by Complainant to use any of Complainant’s trademarks,
(ii) Respondent is not, and has never been, commonly known by the Domain Name, and it is highly unlikely that Respondent is commonly known by the HOLIDEX Mark,
(iii) HOLIDEX is an invented word, and as such is not one traders would legitimately choose unless seeking to create an impression of an association with Complainant;
(f) Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith because:
(i) Respondent was undoubtedly aware of the fame and worldwide reputation of the HOLIDEX Mark when it registered the Domain Name,
(ii) Respondent had first-hand knowledge of the HOLIDEX Mark when it registered the Domain Name because Respondent or affiliated entities also own travel-related websites that book rooms for Complainant’s hotels, including websites using the domains and ,
(iii) Complainant’s numerous HOLIDEX trademark registrations in the United States, Kenya, and the rest of the world constitute constructive notice to the world of the existence and validity of its rights in the HOLIDEX Mark,
(iv) Respondent is holding the Domain Name to prevent Complainant from reflecting its HOLIDEX Mark in a corresponding domain name, and to disrupt and divert Complainant’s business,
(v) Respondent is likely in the travel business or is related to an entity in the travel business, and therefor was likely aware of the HOLIDEX Mark when it registered the Domain Name;
(g) Respondent has sought to disguise its identity;
(h) Complainant asserts that Respondent is related to or is an alter ego for a previous registrant of the Domain Name, one Bernard Metzger (“Metzger”), because:
(i) the current mailing address for the Domain Name in the Go Daddy Whois record is identical to the contact information that was listed in Whois when Metzger owned the Domain Name,
(ii) Whois information for the Domain Name lists the registrant Inoxis Africa Ltd., a Kenyan corporation, as having the same address,
(iii) Whois information for lists Metzger as the registrant, with the same address,
(iv) the website is an African and Kenyan-focused travel website featuring hotels, safari packages, rental cars, etc.,
(v) the website contains a link to a website at “www.kenyadirectory.com”, a Kenya-focused travel website, and Whois information for lists Metzger as the registrant,
(vi) the whois records for and list the identical domain name servers, namely NS1.RAPIDNS.COM and NS2.RAPIDNS.COM,
(viii) an Internet search for “Inoxis Africa” on the Google search engine revealed one website: “www.africaexcursionsafaris.com”, which is a search site for African and Kenyan vacation activities;
(i) Complainant asserts that if Respondent is related to or the alter ego of Metzger, then Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the HOLIDEX Mark because:
(i) On January 26, 2001, BHRI, Complainant’s predecessor-in-title, sent a letter to the then-current registrant of the Domain Name demanding that the registrant cease using the Domain Name,
(ii) Metzger responded on February 25, 2001, on behalf of the former registrant and correspondence between Metzger and Counsel representing BHRI and Complainant continued up to August 2002, at which time Metzger indicated he was trying to sell his travel agency and could not make a final decision about the Domain Name until his business plans were finalized,
(iii) Complainant heard nothing from Metzger, and the Domain Name was transferred to Respondent in March 2004.
...
2004-09-29 - Case Details
The Complainant states that it has carried out a Google search for the expression “itaufacil” which resulted in detecting two websites where in each case the page presented a warning message by Symantec concerning the usage of computer programs and domain names for the purpose of fraud involving the domain name in dispute associated with the vaccine.
...
2005-12-07 - Case Details
- Respecto a los antecedentes del uso del Nombre de Dominio, el Demandado manifiesta que mientras se desarrollaba la web definitiva, puso un libro de visitas en el que cualquier persona, de forma totalmente anónima y sin registro previo, podía poner lo que quisiera, que creó un programa informático y un logo provisional en el que se leía “gasgas.es” y colocó fotos de distintas motocicletas y quads que obtuvo buscando en el buscador “google” en su sección de imágenes, sin copyright.
- Posteriormente y tras recibir el requerimiento de Gas Gas Motos, S.A., el Demandado consultó el libro de opiniones que tenía colgado en la web, y comprobó que en él se podían leer opiniones de todo tipo, añadiendo que, aunque las opiniones eran generalmente expresadas de un modo correcto, sí hubo personajes anónimos que con una mala educación manifiesta, expresaron su opinión sobre diversos temas. ...
2006-09-21 - Case Details
Further, while the Complainant acknowledges that the XZIBIT mark is a play on the common word “exhibit”, even so “xzibit” is an invented word with a distinctive spelling, and the Complainant has presented convincing evidence, based on Google searches, that “xzibit” is almost exclusively associated on the Internet with the Complainant and the products and services identified by the XZIBIT mark.
...
2006-09-01 - Case Details
Further, a “consumer searching for the [Complainant’s] website using search engines such as Google would be misled by [the] Respondent’s website because it appears alongside references to the [Complainant] and its services”. ...
2007-03-02 - Case Details
Lo cual es comprobable efectuando una búsqueda en Google de la palabra
"monografiass", con lo cual se puede comprobar el gran número
de páginas web que enlazan a "www.monografiass.com" y prueban
el reconocimiento del sitio web.
...
2004-04-16 - Case Details
The Panel confirmed the existence of this
hyperlink on November 19, 2003.
8. Complaint, Annex 7.
9. A Google® search using "Greyson"
submitted by Complainant (Annex 11) indicates that the Website was fifth on
the list of over 5000 matches. ...
2003-12-12 - Case Details
Complainant
points to e-mail correspondence allegedly demonstrating a single instance of
actual confusion, and points to Google™ search results for "car warranties
direct" and "car warranty direct" which list Respondent’s site
first, arguing that this is further evidence of likelihood of confusion.
...
2004-04-15 - Case Details
The page also contains advertisements sponsored by Google including the Complainant's websites (“www.intercontinental.com� and “www.holidayinn.com�), other hotel booking engine websites (“www.quickbeds.com�), and websites relating to hotels not affiliated or associated with the Complainant.
...A typical website displays information about a single hotel and provides links for more information including reservations. The links then display Google advertisements for websites which offer hospitality services in competition with the Complainant's services (such as Marriott, Travel Lodge, etc). ...
2010-01-26 - Case Details
When users search for “packers” or “packers news” using the Google search engine, Respondent’s reference appears on pages 4 and 5 of the results, respectively. The search results display the short description as “Total Packers is the No. 1 site for Green Bay Packers news, commentary, analysis and even a little humor,” while the description for the official site on the first page of the Google search results shows “Packers.com, the official website of the Green Bay Packers.”
...
2016-11-03 - Case Details
En réponse à l'Ordonnance No. 1, le Défendeur explique qu'il aurait été contreproductif pour lui de tenter de nuire aux intérêts du Requérant, expliquant qu'il a simplement cherché à être visible sur Google et à bien se positionner sur la requête "parier sur l'esport", où son nom figure aujourd'hui en première position alors qu'il est absent des requêtes correspondant aux marques du Requérant.
...
2016-08-19 - Case Details
Hevun Diversified Corporation, NAF Claim No. 791657; Google Inc. v. Jennifer Burns, NAF Claim No. 726096; The Cheesecake Factory Inc. and The Cheesecake Factory Assets Co., LLC v. ...
2015-05-15 - Case Details
The Complainants note that the entire first page of a “Google” search result for “nutraderm” identifies references which all relate to the Complainants’ and their products and trademark. ...
2015-05-07 - Case Details
The Respondent claims that many other webpages, including Google Maps, Microsoft Windows, Amazon, Microsoft Office and Facebook, use the word "pin" in the same dictionary sense of the word.
...
2014-09-01 - Case Details
Furthermore, the Respondent believes that it is natural that names have the same roots and it does not frustrate its distinctiveness. By comparing Google search results of "sephora" and "sephoravip", the Respondent states that the disputed domain name does not mislead the public. ...
2014-11-26 - Case Details
汉语拼音“haoma”与 “QQ” 连用时，互联网用户普遍会首先将其对应理解为 “号码” 一词。例如，使用搜索引擎百度、Google检索“qqhaoma” 时，系统或提示“你要找的是不是：qq号码”，或自动关联到与“QQ号码”相关的搜索（见投诉书附件19）。这充分表明“haoma” 与 “QQ” 连用时最可能对应的中文汉字为“号码”，“qqhaoma”因此对应“QQ号码”。
...
2013-01-16 - Case Details
iv) The Complainant further submits that a simple search on the Internet through any search engine, such as “Google”, would have revealed the Complainant’s presence and trademarks.
(v) The Complainant contends that the litigious websites connected to the disputed domain names also provide evidence that the Respondents knew about the Complainant and its trademark. ...
2013-04-10 - Case Details
The Complainant adds that Internet searches on the Google search engine for “lpg keymodule” provide relevant information, press articles and references to the Complainant in the first results.
...
2014-02-20 - Case Details