a product marketed under Google s ANDROID mark TV is only marketed by Google under the name GOOGLE TV Mr Escovar registered the domain name androidtv.com before Google ever adopted the word android for commercial use and long before Google

advertisements through the Google-Ad sense sponsored links Respondent is not commonly known and has no rights over the terms Volkswagen Transporter or Volkswagen Transporter Respondent is tarnishing Complainant s well-known and famous registered

s spacing and punctuation 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 complainant s mark regardless of the omission of a letter and

also provides evidence from Google Analytics showing the location of its website users is primarily India and other markets which are outside the countries where Complainant operates 6 Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4 a of the

typing the term ebay in the Google search engine available at www.google.com refer to the Complainant The Complainant further states that it has made substantial investments to develop a strong presence online by being active on different social

error page which states Oops Google Chrome could not find tumbld.com See Complainant s Exhibit M e Respondent registered and is using the tumbld.com domain name in bad faith a Respondent has been involved in a prior UDRP proceeding in which the

approximately USD 500000 in Google Adwords advertising since its Internet advertising started in April 2010 Complainant asserts that since the launch of its website in April 2010 over 2 million people have visited the website with Complainant

a trademark search A simple Google search would have also revealed the Complainant s rights in the trademark MICHELIN Further the Complainant asserts that the Respondent is obviously aware of the Complainant since he incorporated the term star

similar to TRUE VALUE Google Inc v GOOGLESERVICES FA 1391118 Nat Arb Forum July 6 2011 finding googleservices.com confusingly similar to GOOGLE The Panel concludes that the domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant s mark Rights or

confusing similarity 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

omitted the letter i see also Google Inc v hitendra aghara / balaji ele FA1309001519713 Nat Arb Forum Nov 5 2013 By registering a domain name that merely replaces the letters oo with the numbers 00 which are similarly situated on the QWERTY

from Complainant s 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 and the addition of a generic

advertising links based on a Google advertiser feed on hosted domain names sharing the advertising revenue with the domain name owners According to the Respondent it plays no role in the selection of the links placed on the website The links

arbitration forum DECISION Google Inc v Scott Litoline / SLA Claim Number FA1402001542043 PARTIES Complainant is Google Inc Complainant represented by Nicole M Meyer of Dickinson Wright PLLC Washington D.C USA Respondent is Scott Litoline / SLA

name and it now resolves to a Google error page See Exhibit J Panels have frequently found that a respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name that resolves to an inactive website or error page See Bloomberg L.P v SC

the press and in the media A Google search report presented before the Panel reveals links for the Complainant as one of the top results The Complainant s IP holding companies own among others the following trademarks U.S trademark registration No

that the results of a Google search for the name Veritas Investments reveals that at least 13 other entities own or use the name including at least four entities in the United States and several others located internationally Thus according

from Complainant s 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

Paragraph 4 a i 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

for the word chap b A Google search for the term chap yields over 29400000 third-party results See Respondent s Annex J c There are over 2000 registered domain names that end with the term chap See Respondent s Annex L 2 Respondent has made