of confusing similarity 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

very significant spikes in Google searches of the expression King Digital Entertainment around the time of the February announcement and in the lead up to the commencement of stock trading on the New York Stock Exchange On March 25 2014 the

top-level domain gTLD com 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

Policy Paragraph 4 a i 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

Complainant s mark Using Google Maps the address listed on the website available at the Disputed Domain Name for Respondent s Hotel Dolce International provides a listing not for Hotel Dolce International but rather for the Urban Hotel This

Complainant and a search on Google using the keyword ASCOM demonstrates that the first results relate to the Complainant products services or news iii ASCOM is a coined mark with no meaning iv trademark reputation transcends national borders due

probably been obtained via a Google search and then inserted into the registration of the infringing domain to try and make it look as though it is legitimately connected with Hapag Lloyd This is therefore further evidence of the intended

confusing similarity See e.g 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

2014 of the results of a Google search for life ok from which it appears there was no website resolving from the disputed domain name On June 4 2014 and at the date of this decision the disputed domain name resolved to a website at

of Complainant s competitor Google As stated in the Response Respondent s intention had always been to expose the opportunity to both Google and Yahoo and if the first to review my proposal choose to accept it there was the possibility that it

name from ANIMAL PAK 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

searches that it conducted on Google for the UK that show that all the searches apart from one that related to the Respondent were in connection with the Complainant As mentioned above the Complainant also submitted information regarding its

s business and results of a Google search for Sawiris the majority of the results for which refer to the Complainant or his family Whether a complainant can establish trademark rights in a personal name is addressed in the WIPO Overview of WIPO

purposes of the Policy 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

is participating in a Google AdSense scheme with this domain name in order to maximizing the advertising revenue generated from this domain name Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith First Respondent s decision to host

de buscas nomeadamente o Google ao introduzir a expressão padaria portuguesa redireciona-se para o sítio de rede eletrônica e notícias relacionadas à Reclamante O nome de domínio em disputa foi registrado em 27 de novembro de 2013 A

Adobe Marketing Cloud and Google Analytics reports in support of these figures The Complainant also submits copies of pages from the website which it states has been modified from time to time which refer extensively to the name Vidéotron The

a number of what appear to be Google advertisements The Respondent Website does not resemble the Complainant Website in any way and in particular is in a different language uses different colours fonts and overall design In 2013 the Complainant

highly distinctive see also Google Inc v DktBot.org FA 286993 Nat Arb Forum Aug 4 2004 b Complainant asserts that Respondent has no license or agreement with Complainant authorizing Respondent to use the SCOTTRADE mark Respondent uses the

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