Google Inc v Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp Claim Number FA1506001622862 PARTIES Complainant is Google Inc Complainant represented by Denis V Shamo of Dickinson Wright PLLC Washington D.C USA Respondent is Domain Admin / Whois Privacy

to establish his rights Google Inc v YiWuShi Shuangfeng Jixie Youxian Gongsi c/o Huang Jian FA 1159972 Nat Arb Forum May 5 2008 The subject domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant s SPEX mark because the subject domain

of two letters See Google Inc v Jon G FA 106084 Nat Arb Forum Apr 26 2002 finding googel.com to be confusingly similar to the complainant s GOOGLE mark and noting that t he transposition of two letters does not create a distinct mark

Google Inc v S S / Google International Claim Number FA1506001625742 PARTIES Complainant is Google Inc Complainant represented by Matthew J Snider of Dickinson Wright PLLC Michigan USA Respondent is S S / Google International Respondent

a single letter is added See Google Inc v DktBot.org FA 286993 Nat Arb Forum Aug 4 2004 The mere addition of a single letter to the complainant s mark does not remove the respondent s domain names from the realm of confusing similarity in relation

native language He provided a Google translation of the word アコール accor in Japanese to Arabic and then to English Respondent further argues in the May 18 2015 response that through his research he has found more than thirty domain names

pelo Especialista no buscador Google por no break net nova net não trouxe nenhuma página dentre os resultados que se referisse à Reclamada mas trouxe a página da Reclamante dentre os primeiros resultados Quanto à alegação da Reclamada de que

does in the present case See Google Inc v DktBot.org FA 286993 Nat Arb Forum Aug 4 2004 The mere addition of a single letter to the complainant s mark does not remove the respondent s domain names from the realm of confusing similarity in relation

monthly visitors according to Google Analytics and over 200 million reviews and opinions from its online community covering more than 2.7 million hotels restaurants and attractions TripAdvisor operates under TRIP on the NASDAQ Stock Exchange In the

a trademark search or even a Google search would have revealed Complainant interest in the KERASTASE trademark Where Respondent knew or should have known of Complainant trademark rights at the time of registration registration of the Domain Name

Moreover when conducting a Google search with the word cembrax there is no result concerning the Respondent website www.cembrax.com or its services to the contrary the first result is the Complainant website www.cembra.ch Finally the Complainant

of the Policy See e.g Google Inc v Scott Litoline / SLA FA 1542043 Nat Arb Forum Mar 12 2014 finding bad faith where domain name was used to mimic complainant website and distribute malware The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was

similar to a mark See Google Inc v DktBot.org FA 286993 Nat Arb Forum Aug 4 2004 The mere addition of a single letter to the complainant s mark does not remove the respondent s domain names from the realm of confusing similarity in relation

selected and provided by Google services Therefore Respondent makes no real editorial selection thus having no involvement in the articles choice or wording The advertisement of Complainant competitors remains on Respondent website That

as Adidas Armani Facebook Google Mazda and Mitsubishi Since the date of its registration the disputed domain name resolves to a Pay Per Click PPC website Upon finding out about the registration of the disputed domain name on April 27 2015 the

dominant portion of the name Google Inc v Nijat Hassanov WIPO Case No D2011-1054 T he mere addition of the letters x and xxx and the suffix com was held to be an irrelevant distinction which did not prevent the likelihood of confusion in the minds

s disputed domain names See Google Inc v DktBot.org FA 286993 Nat Arb Forum Aug 4 2004 The mere addition of a single letter to the complainant s mark does not remove the respondent s domain names from the realm of confusing similarity in relation

Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See Google Inc v Petrovich FA 1339345 Nat Arb Forum September 23 2010 finding that disputed domain names which distribute malware to Internet users computers demonstrate Respondent s bad faith DECISION Complainant having

Google Inc v Himanshu Arora / Ad Word Services Claim Number FA1506001623795 PARTIES Complainant is Google Inc Complainant represented by Melissa Alcantara of Dickinson Wright PLLC United States of America Respondent is Himanshu Arora / Ad

of the complainant see also Google Inc v Petrovich FA 1339345 Nat Arb Forum September 23 2010 finding that disputed domain names which distribute malware to Internet users computers demonstrate Respondent s bad faith under Policy Paragraph 4 b iv