around the world See e.g 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 Accordingly

from a complainant s mark See 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

arbitration forum DECISION Google Inc v Domain Admin / PrivacyProtect.org Claim Number FA1309001521470 PARTIES Complainant is Google Inc Complainant represented by Katie Krajeck of Cooley LLP California USA Respondent is Domain Admin /

name from the trademark 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

arbitration forum DECISION Google Inc v Aleksey Lebedev Claim Number FA1309001521471 PARTIES Complainant is Google Inc Complainant represented by Katie Krajeck of Cooley LLP California USA Respondent is Aleksey Lebedev Respondent Russia

a complainant s trademark 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

arbitration forum DECISION Google Inc v hitendra aghara / balaji ele Claim Number FA1309001519713 PARTIES Complainant is Google Inc Complainant represented by Nicole M Meyer of Dickinson Wright PLLC Washington D.C USA Respondent is hitendra

translated into English using Google Translate Based on the foregoing daokanning.com is confusingly similar to Complainant s registered � 康宁 mark See McDonald Corporation v Private Whois mailesong.org Case No D2012-0481 WIPO Apr 26 2012 b In

specially it has engaged in Google advertising services established Twitter and Facebook promotional campaigns and has developed and aired web-based videos promoting the NAMECHEAP mark as well as the services of Complainant associated therewith

of the domain names 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

Paragraph 4 a i See e.g 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 It has also

name from a given 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

the mark under 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

Dated October 29 2013 googlemail google.com e mail postmaster@googlemail single member well known webnet marketing D2000 0009 top level Hanna Barbera non fringing 1260 infringing aware 1412 googlemail-google com GODADDY COM

it has engaged in Google advertising services established Twitter and Facebook promotional campaigns and has developed and aired web-based videos promoting the NAMECHEAP.COM mark as well as the services of Complainant associated

similar to Complainant s GOOGLE mark The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant s GOOGLE mark in its entirety b Respondent does not own any rights to or legitimate interests in the play-google.co domain name a Complainant has not

arbitration forum DECISION Google Inc v asa dsye Claim Number FA1309001519857 PARTIES Complainant is Google Inc Complainant represented by Katie Krajeck of Cooley LLP California USA Respondent is asa dsye Respondent Russia REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED

had been downloaded from the Google Play store Respondent s pley-gogle.com domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant s GOOGLE mark The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant s GOOGLE mark while deleting the letter o from the word

Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See Google Inc v Bassano FA 232958 Nat Arb Forum Mar 8 2004 holding that the respondent s use of the googlesex.info domain name to intentionally attract Internet users to a website featuring adult-oriented content

Complainant has engaged Google advertising services established Twitter and Facebook promotional campaigns and has developed and aired web-based promotional videos vi Complainant has become an industry leader in offering domain name