had not heard of it a simple Google search would have revealed that there was a risk of her infringing Complainant s trademark Moreover if Respondent s intention was simply to have a domain name using her Grand Daughter s name without being

of the Policy see also 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

Policy Paragraph 4 b iv See Google Inc v Bassano FA 232958 Nat Arb Forum Mar 8 2004 holding that the respondent s use of the googlesex.info domain name to intentionally attract Internet users to a website featuring adult-oriented content

when entering the url address 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

行� �� 家组裁决 Google Inc v jiangchunyuan � �请案号FA1503001609085 1 � 事人及争议域名 本案投诉人为 Google Inc （以下� 称 投诉人 或 谷歌 ）� �被投诉人为 姜� �元 （jiangchunyuan）（以下� 称

complainant s mark see also 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

the entire first page of a Google search result for nutraderm identifies references which all relate to the Complainants and their products and trademark The Complainants state that the lack of a website at the disputed domain name will lead

19 2015 On March 23 2015 Google Inc confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the microsoftwi.com domain name is registered with Google Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name Google Inc has verified that Respondent is bound

names before we SEO top 1 google and build web Okie we send user pass first and receive payment later Thanks On the basis of the foregoing allegations Complainant requests transfer of the disputed domain names.1 B Respondents Respondents did

of the same A search on Google revealed only references to the Complainant It appears to have no other known meaning in any language except as the trade mark and business of the Complainant There is no active use of the Domain Name which

E and F Searches using the Google and Yahoo search engines for the term labcorp consistently result in Complainant as the first listing given Complaint Annex J Respondent registered the disputed domain name on January 26 2015 almost 20 years

attached such as a result of Google search a Wikipedia article and a Facebook page Secondly Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name because Respondent has not and cannot show that the

what it describes as a Google Analytics audience overview report for the Complainant Website Examination of that Annexure reveals that it purports to be an analysis of the Complainant websites at www.orientexpress.com.au

in this case shows that a Google search for saxo bank returns 4920000.00 results All first Google search page results relate to the Complainant Because sites listed on the first Google search results page generate 92 of all traffic from an

Apple iTunes App Store and Google Play Store The POPMONEY trademark is featured on the websites of its clients on which the Complainant s services are available The Complainant is the registrant of the domain name popmoney.com and operates a

there is a print-out of a Google Search for the trademark MAPRIN showing results which refer to the Complainant as the owner of said mark At Exhibit 3 to the Complaint there is a copy of the Chilean trademark registration number 871127 for the

to the NETSOL Mark See Google Inc v Daniel Reiner FA 1392353 Nat Arb Forum Jul 12 2011 finding the addition of a descriptive term does not differentiate a domain name googledomains.com from the mark GOOGLE it is infringing upon Indeed

citadelworld.com googleworld.com potterybarnworld.com and kinectworld.com were held confusingly similar to respectively the trade marks GLOCK CITADEL GOOGLE POTTERY BARN and KINECT 5.A.2 Rights or Legitimate Interests 5.A.2.1

s WELLS FARGO 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 the addition of

asserts trademark rights in GOOGLE and GOOGLE TRANSLATE It alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark GOOGLE Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name