plan Complainant notes that a Google search for Western Women Entrepreneurs does not correspond to a single reliable link See Compl at Attached Ex 10 In Google Inc v Jon G FA 106084 Nat Arb Forum Apr 26 2002 the panel wrote Respondent unsupported

similar scenarios Notably in Google Inc v Private Person / Andrey Skorodubov FA 1506184 Nat Arb Forum Jul 28 2013 the panel found the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the complainants mark regardless of the omission of a letter and

the phrase Europcar Services Google searches for the term Europcar services provide results almost exclusively related to the Complainant The Complainant is the holder of the domain name europcarservices.com which is in all material respects

Policy Paragraph4 c iii and Google Inc v Sergey Gridasov FA474816 Nat Arb Forum July 5 2005 finding bad faith use where the domain name directed Internet users to a website attempting to install spyware and other harmful material on the computers

IAFT mark as evidenced by a Google search related to that mark Respondent contention that it intended or intends to use the disputed domain name for nautical pursuits is a ruse The website connected with the name has been unvarying and without

registrations screenshot of GOOGLE search for the term PERSONALIZATION MALL showing over 1 million results many results referencing the Complainant s mark and press releases / historical screenshots of Complainant s website from 1999 2008 are

Complainant uses the GOOGLE mark in a vast array of online and digital services and the mark is protected The googleekip.com domain name is confusingly similar to the GOOGLE mark Respondent does not use the googleekip.com domain name in a

com are irrelevant here 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

for the term coit from Google and made reference to the Complainant in the Respondent s adwords appearing in Google s search results The Complainant contends that the Respondent had constructive notice of the Complainant s Marks because of

or in any other language A Google search on the wording ARCELORMITTAL displays various results all of them being related to the Complainant The Complainant argues a Respondent is not commonly known by a domain name where the WHOIS information is

a i confusing similarity See Google Inc v Private Person / Andrey Skorodubov FA 1506184 Nat Arb Forum Jul 28 2013 finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the complainants mark regardless of the omission of a letter and

in similar cases 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

of common generic terms A Google search for my school shows at least 112 million results none of which is associated with Complainant Respondent obtained the disputed domain name on or about March 1 2013 following a public auction where

a i confusing similarity 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

to Policy Paragraph4 a i 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

to Policy Paragraph4 a i 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

of the Policy See for example Google Inc v Private Person / Andrey Skorodubov FA 1506184 Nat Arb Forum Jul 28 2013 finding under Policy Paragraph 4 a i that a disputed domain name was confusingly similar to a UDRP com-plainant s mark regardless of

the incorporated mark See e.g 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

not well-known in Ireland A Google search for the words penthouse and ireland brings up no reference to the Complainant If the Complainant was famous one would expect the Complainant s trade mark to appear in such a search The Complainant delayed

name and the mark See e.g 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