NEWS mark see also 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

Google Inc v Alex Dori Claim Number FA1506001623672 PARTIES Complainant is Google Inc Complainant represented by Matthew J Snider of Dickinson Wright PLLC Michigan USA Respondent is Alex Dori Respondent Russian Federation REGISTRAR AND

s LA FITNESS mark See Google Inc v N/A/ k gautam FA 1524232 Nat Arb Forum Nov 18 2013 finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the at-issue mark despite the misspelling of the mark by omitting letters the addition of

the disputed domain name 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

with similar arguments See Google Inc v Xtraplus Corp D2001-0125 WIPO Apr 16 2001 finding that the respondent s domain names were confusingly similar to Complainant s GOOGLE mark where the respondent merely added common terms such as buy or gear

links are auto-generated by Google and are constantly changing based on Google keyword advertising inventory and user search behaviour and demand Furthermore the Respondent registered the Domain Name in March 2003 The Complaint was filed over 12

for Respondent through the Google AdSense service As noted above Respondent did not respond to Complainant Reply despite being given permission to do so 6 Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4 a of the Policy lists the three elements which

disputed domain name into the Google search engine a list of links to a number subdomains which relate to the disputed domain name results At least one of these links resolved to a website which according to the Complainant was an almost identical

similar to KNIVES PLUS Google Inc v Gillespie FA 1434643 Nat Arb Forum March 15 2013 finding googlerobert.com confusingly similar to GOOGLE Abbott Labs v Whois Svc c/o Belize Domain WHOIS Svc FA 1254682 Nat Arb Forum May 14 2009 the addition

one-in-the-same entity See Google Inc v Akhil Mishra / Rajeev / Latika Sharma / Satyendra Kumar Pandey / Satendra Kumar / Jameet / Sayni Rana FA 1617405 Nat Arb Forum June 9 2015 finding that there is colorable evidence supporting a conclusion

Paragraph4 a i see also Google Inc v DktBot.org FA 286993 Nat Arb Forum August 4 2004 finding that the complainant had established rights in the GOOGLE mark through its holding of numerous trademark registrations around the world 4 See Altec

or in any other language A Google search of the expression BOURSORAMA® displays several results all of them being related to the Complainant Thus the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark The Respondent

s capital one mark See Google Inc v N/A/ k gautam FA 1524232 Nat Arb Forum Nov 18 2013 finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the at-issue mark despite the misspelling of the mark by omitting letters the addition of

Google Inc v yu hengjie Claim Number FA1506001622860 PARTIES Complainant is Google Inc Complainant represented by Denis V Shamo of Dickinson Wright PLLC District of Columbia USA Respondent is yu hengjie Respondent China REGISTRAR AND

a domain name from 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

Respondent to make its Google AdWords advertisements more effective in order to generate more sales which included domain name registrations on behalf of Complainant Based on the foregoing the Panel finds that this is a business and/or

domain name Data from Google Analytics and Alexa Data show that at present cam4.com has a traffic ranking of 1045th in the world The Complainant holds a number of registrations for CAM4 Registration No 4062460 with the United States Patent

trademark database searches Google searches and business register searches in attempt to find if Respondent has any rights in the migros.us domain name Complainant contends it has found no such relevant information Previous panels have found that

a domain name from 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

s OMAHA STEAKS trademark See Google Inc v N/A/ k gautam FA 1524232 Nat Arb Forum Nov 18 2013 finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the at-issue mark despite the misspelling of the mark by omitting letters and the addition