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

s registered 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

14 2004 Complainant uses the GOOGLE mark in connection with its Internet-related products and services including Internet search and online advertising services The google-status.com domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant s GOOGLE mark

the disputed domain See Google Inc v DktBot.org FA0406000286993 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

highly distinctive 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

evidenced by the fact that a Google search for Bharti predominantly reveals links to the Complainant and the Bharti Group The Complainant further claims that it spends millions of dollars each year to promote and advertise the Mark around the

Google Inc v Sunil K iSupport Solution Claim Number FA1502001605032 PARTIES Complainant is Google Inc Complainant represented by Chantal Z Hwang of Cooley LLP California USA Respondent is Sunil K iSupport Solution Respondent India REGISTRAR

evidence a list of examples A Google search for Emile Levisetti showing that all first page results returned refer to the Complainant or his professional works An Internet Movie Database IMDB listing showing extensive creative credits attributed to

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 under Policy Paragraph 4 b iv

as part of their name A Google search for the term excluding the Complainant brings up over 1.6 million results There are over 300 registered Turkish trade marks with over 80 for Tiryaki alone owned by persons unaffiliated with the

video-girls.info website A Google search for video-girls.info returns over 2 000 such sites For example goldenwalkingtours.com Golden Tours provider of walking tours is a registered UK trademark bluebookdealer.net Kelly Blue Book provider of

it convincing that a simple Google search for the words terram landscape would have led to the Complainant website terram.com and put the Respondent on notice of the Complainant rights in the TERRAM Marks and therefore the Panel is satisfied that

allegedly checked this on Google which treated the terms Versalis and Versailles interchangeably as meaning the same thing According to Respondent Versalis is a common word that has many different meanings in different languages such as

a domain name from that mark Google Inc v Brito FA0912001297484 Nat Arb Forum Jan 25 2010 finding googleos.info confusingly similar to GOOGLE noting that the addition of two letters to Complainant s mark is insufficient to adequately distinguish

complainant s marks 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

rising terms searched for in Google in the UAE next to Facebook and Cricket live Complainant alleges that Respondent is targeting Complainant s brand in order to direct traffic to its own website disrupting Complainant s business in the process

UDRP Paragraph 4 a i see also 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

Complainant notes that its Google search returned a result listing the Respondent s website as the Mane N Tail in Ireland official site which notation also appeared in the top left hand corner of the Respondent s website The Panel finds on the

and other websites Even a Google search which limits results to dates between 2003 and 2005 and excludes Complainant s own websites shows how extensive was the reputation of the WORDPRESS Mark during Complainant s early history In 2006

for moto spot or motospot in Google Spain from a browser in Spanish language and from a Spanish location does not lead to any websites related to the Complainant The Respondent states that none of the services provided by the website available at