s HURRIYET mark 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

THE CHEFS WAREHOUSE 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 CHEFS WAREHOUSE 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

two transposed 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

fastest rising words used in Google search B Respondent The Respondent has made no reply to the Complainant s contentions and is in default In reference to paragraphs 5 e and 14 of the Rules no exceptional circumstances explaining the default have

from the trade mark see e.g Google Inc v Google Adwords Service at HCMC Vietnam WIPO Case No D2013-0298 and Nike Inc v No Owner / Ashkan Mohammadi WIPO Case No D2013-1297 Here the Panel finds that the distinctive element of the Disputed Domain

top-level domain com 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

translation tools such as Google Translate and Baidu Online Translation are readily available It would have required the Respondent little effort to get a fair idea of the content of the Complaint by using such tools Even without machine

Case No D2004-0784 citing Google Inc v wwwgoogle.com and Jimmy Siavesh Behain WIPO Case No D2000-1240 Casio Keisanki Kabushiki Casio Computer Co Ltd v Jongchan Kim WIPO Case No D2003-0400 Downstream Technologies LLC v Bartels System GmbH WIPO

Paragraph4 a i see also Google Inc v DktBot.org FA 286993 Nat Arb Forum Aug 4 2004 finding that the complainant had established rights in the GOOGLE mark through its holding of numerous trademark registrations around the world 5 See

Case No D2004-0784 citing Google Inc v wwwgoogle.com and Jimmy Siavesh Behain WIPO Case No D2000-1240 Casio Keisanki Kabushiki Casio Computer Co Ltd v Jongchan Kim WIPO Case No D2003-0400 Downstream Technologies LLC v Bartels System GmbH WIPO

to gain some recognition from Google of relevant content for the purpose of gaining a degree of search ranking and to attract persons who may wish to partner or joint venture with me in the development of the forum The content for that website was

is obtaining high rankings in Google s natural search which naturally translates into an increase in traffic to its website and thus additional commercial gain That Respondent concealed its identity by means of a privacy protection service is in

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 Say Cheesecake WIPO Case No D2005-0766 Napster Inc v Giovanni Vinscani WIPO Case No D2005-0531

of the Trade Marks Likewise a Google search on the name Stuart Weitzman as carried out by the Panel would have revealed as the first result the website under www.stuartweitzman.com and a great number of links to websites where goods are sold under

Google Inc v James Lucas / FireStudio / jameschee / FIRESTUDIO / SEONG YONG Claim Number FA1502001605757 PARTIES Complainant is Google Inc Complainant represented by Matthew J Snider of Dickinson Wright PLLC Michigan USA Respondent is James

with 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

this message generated by Google there is no use of the disputed domain name Accordingly there are no facts of record as Complainant calls them to support the claim that Respondent is using the domain name in bad faith It follows that there is

Policy Paragraph 4 b iv 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 under Policy Paragraph 4 b iv

Policy Paragraph 4 a i 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