A majority of the Panel finds is hard to believe that, in the end of December 2008, a professional domain name registrant such as the Respondent could not have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark, all the more than the Complainant’s website appears particularly high in Google natural search results when one types the term “mazuma” in the search engine. Assuming that the Respondent is an internal unit of Internet Reit, the holding of several decisions against Internet Reit certainly does not appear to favor the Respondent (see, e.g., Entreparticuliers.com and Mr. ...
2012-06-04 - Case Details
An Internet search for the Complainant’s NET2PHONE trademark and its PC2PHONE trademark through a search engine such as Google or Yahoo!, does not return the Respondents’ website as an associated website or refer to MPT as a similar company that markets similar products.
7. ...
2007-06-14 - Case Details
Indeed, the Respondent has even registered or purchased Google Adwords (“Compiere”
or “Compiere training”) in an attempt to direct persons seeking
the Complainant’s training materials to its infringing sites and materials.
...
2007-04-12 - Case Details
By April 8, 2004, and most likely by the date of the Complaint, the Respondent had not created an active website at the URL “www.soignon.com” as it appears from Complainant’s attempt to locate same in a Google search as shown in Annex 7.
Respondent has in the past registered several domain names on readily apparent generic terms such as “custodians,” “insulator,” “greenlawn,” “curtainrod,” as well as “agile,” “LFO,” “NEN,” and “naturalizer” which last four have been the subject matter of UDRP decisions as put in evidence by Complainant, two of three in which Respondent’s view prevailed, were referred to and relied upon by Respondent.
...
2004-06-17 - Case Details
The Respondent relies in this respect on the Complainant's own evidence that shows that the use of the term “Aubert” in a search engine results in a large number of links associated with the surnames of prominent persons (although it claims that links related to the Complainant feature more prominently if the search is conducted in France). This Respondent exhibits Google search results as evidence of this.
5.15 The Respondent also refers to a large number of cases involving the NetIdentity business which are said to show that that the Respondent's activities do not involve bad faith registration or use. ...
2009-04-08 - Case Details
The fact that the Domain Names were registered the same day that discussions were taking place through Google, is compelling. In short, regardless of the truthfulness of the Respondent’s contention that it had been developing a product since 2009 under the “HANA” name, the timing strongly suggests that the Respondent’s motive for making these registrations was not as part of that project but was instead in response to the Complainant’s interest in relation to the Domain Name. ...
2013-01-09 - Case Details
The Panel did indeed visit the website and found that it redirects to a website at “www.winrarindia.in”, comprising just a “Welcome to Winrar” banner with some images of motor tools, a navigation bar and a Google search box on the home page. The “Services” page states:
“Specialists in: Computerised Wheel Alignment & Wheel Balancing & Tyres.
...
2015-06-15 - Case Details
The Respondent owns a number of other domain names which combine the word library with third-party registered trademarks including <google-library.com>, , and . Substantially the same content is available at each of the websites linked to these domain names (the “Respondent’s Other Websites”) so that for example the same file corresponding to Great Expectations by Charles Dickens is available at the Respondent’s Websites and the Respondent’s Other Websites.
...
2016-10-28 - Case Details
Siendo de destacar las inversiones importantes en desarrollo de plataformas informáticas que ha efectuado Blue Touring Group, S.L., a través de las referidas empresas y otras entidades participadas por éstas, así como sus inversiones publicitarias en AdWords de Google y otros medios, durante todos estos años. Se aporta diversa documentación acreditativa de estos extremos, en particular un aval bancario otorgado en escritura pública a favor de la Demandante para la contratación con ésta, así como diversas noticias publicadas en medios de comunicación...
2016-08-16 - Case Details
本件ドメイン名にpointが含まれるが、日本国内でもドメイン名に英単語を用いるケースは決して少なくない。表示広告に英単語が含まれるが、Google AdSense広告であり、日本国外からウェブページを表示すれば、英語の広告が表示されることの方が多いであろうが、日本国内から閲覧した場合、英語の広告が表示されることはごく稀である。英語での答弁は現実問題として不可能である。
...
2022-03-01 - Case Details
The Respondent uses identical tags in its “Tag Cloud” to redirect unwary users interested in the Complainant’s franchise to the website associated with the disputed domain name. The Respondent’s site features on a Google search for “albaik franchise in India”. The Complainant has filed lawsuits in India concerning third parties in which its statutory and unregistered trademark rights have been recognized by the Indian Courts. ...
2021-11-15 - Case Details
The corresponding domain name is owned by the son of the sole shareholder of the Complainant, who also serves as the Complainant’s technical manager and is in charge of operating the said website. The Complainant puts forward a “Google Analytics” page for “www.panet.co.il” in evidence, which appears to suggest that said site has just under 5.4 million users, 77 per cent of whom are based in Israel, with the remainder being from Iraq, France, Germany, Tunisia, Palestine, Algeria, Morocco, Jordan, and the United States of America and varying from 0.8 per cent to 2.37 per cent in per-country volume.
...
2021-11-15 - Case Details
The Complainant cannot find any reference to a business called “Lulu’s Lemons” on Google or when
searching the Irish company registration office searches. Nor has the Complainant found any registered
business name or trade mark relating to this name.
...
2022-08-11 - Case Details
It identifies the registries/records searched as follows :- “Amazon appstore: 587,681 Apple iTunes Apps: 2,085,833 Companies: 0 Google Play: 5,238,566 Kuwait MOCI (2021-08-18): 190,956 Steam: 21,776”. That search locates the trademark KW MOCI 2019_000856 in class 35 as registered and shows an application date of February 2, 2019. ...
2021-12-16 - Case Details
Other than listing several such domain names in the Response and showing that these appear in a “Google” search, the Respondent does not provide anything in the way of evidence of their use. In any event, the existence of third party domain names, whether or not they or their use infringe the Complainants’ rights, would not excuse the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name, and it is only the disputed domain name itself with which the present proceeding is concerned.
...
2021-12-09 - Case Details
The Respondent asserts that he received a telephone call in 2017 from Yekaterina Portnaya, who identified
herself as the president of the Complainant, objecting angrily to the Respondent using Google Ads to
advertise his limousine service with the keywords “Boston Carriage”. The Respondent reports that he
informed Ms. ...
2025-10-31 - Case Details
The Panel conducted basic
searches for “puplist” on the Internet, using Google and Baidu, and noticed that the term “PUP list” may also
stand for the National Football League’s “Physically Unable to Perform list”, which is a roster designation for
players who are injured due to a football-related activity at the start of training camp and cannot practise. 2
In sum, the Complainant’s evidence, without more, is insufficient to sustain an inference that the Respondent
knew of the Complainant’s brand prior to the registration of the disputed domain name.
...
2025-09-09 - Case Details
as a significant exporter
including on June 28, 2025, before the Complaint was filed;
- the EUTM Application was backed by a 2026/27 product plan and it also reflected the Respondent’s
football program, which was reflected in article in the Croatian business press three weeks earlier;
- the EUTM Application covers a standard set of sports classes and has only minimal overlap with the
Complainant’s specification;
- the Respondent’s outreach was not a “coercive” attempt to extract value;
- the Complainant does not mention the Respondent’s First Email on July 22, 2025, which disclaims
affiliation, invites a meeting to agree coexistence/demarcation, and describes ordinary-course sponsorship;
- that outreach was followed by execution of the Basketball LOI consistent with the July 12, 2025 EUTM
application;
- the Respondent’s Second Email on July 28, 2025, sets out a similar sponsorship framework (budget
brackets, timetable, demarcation) and the budget range relates to sponsorship deliverables, not domain
pricing;
- the Respondent’s independent business rationale predates and explains registrations of the disputed
domain names;
- following United States incorporation, the Respondent secured the disputed domain names
and in December 2023 as contingency variants because
was unavailable;
- the Respondent registered when it became available on June 30, 2025, together
with the standard counterparts and as industry standard routine for
brand protection and technical continuity ahead of the EU/Croatian subsidiary launch;
- as the women’s basketball initiative entered FIBA competition, the Respondent implemented a distinct
team domain, , which superseded the earlier variant for that use;
- the Respondent never offered to sell the disputed domain names to the Complainant;
page 6
- when the disputed domain names resolved, they led only to neutral corporate profiles of the
Respondent’s investment activities, with no sale solicitations, ads, for-sale banners, e-commerce, redirects
or “official club” claims, and the disputed domain names were listed transparently in the footer so that
ownership was clear, all indicating a lack of intentional attraction for commercial gain;
- the Respondent has not targeted any other third party marks, and the Complainant’s longstanding use
of has remained unaffected;
- the Respondent is not a competitor of the Complainant as it is not a men’s football club, but operates
an investment/sponsorship group across sports, including women’s basketball, and the Respondent has not
in any case sought to disrupt the Complainant - rather, the Respondent’s pre-dispute correspondence sought
to reduce friction;
- Google Search Console statistics show that meaningful clicks to the disputed domain names came
from respondent-identifying queries, whereas the click-through rate for club-facing terms, was minimal or
non-existent; and
- the Respondent has received no misdirected fan/customer inquiries.
6. ...
2025-12-01 - Case Details
Заявникзазначає, що, наприклад, при
виконанні пошуку за словом “Deebot” у пошуковій системі Google всі результати пошуку вказують
виключно наЗаявника.
Відповідач не є дистриб’ютором або партнером Заявника; Заявникніколи прямо чи опосередковано не
дозволяв Відповідачу використовувати Торговельну Марку DEEBOT і Спірне Доменне Ім’я в будь якій
формі. ...
2024-04-23 - Case Details
The Complainant’s online presence, accessible in Canada, is demonstrated via Google
Keyword Ads and its YouTube presence. Its commercials are found on YouTube, together with clips f rom
the television program “TechGarage” featuring the Complainant, whose airing reaches Canadian audiences.
...
2024-06-12 - Case Details