side we see that Monthly Google keyword search volume is of 27750 searches which are performed in connection with Complainants renown Blanx dentifrice In fact Google.it finds 700 000 entries corresponding to Blanx and that first results

Respondent referred to Google s use of adsense in online advertising and Websense a company that provides online security A Respondent may have rights in a domain name comprised of dictionary words if the domain is demonstrably intended to

value as a rule see finally 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

services are provided by Google one of Complainant s main competitors and provides links to Google s home page The yahoona.com domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant s registered YAHOO mark Respondent fails to provide evidence that

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 Respondent s

disputed domain name See also Google Inc v QQ 775202678 a/k/a Yu FA1011001360208 Nat Arb Forum Jan 30 2011 finding googleipv6.com confusingly similar to GOOGLE and awarding transfer Exxon Mobil Corp v AlMusalami FA0811001235534 Nat Arb Forum Jan 6

contends that it uses the GOOGLE mark to provide an array of web-based services and has registered the GOOGLE mark with many national trademark registrars Complainant also contends that it announced its GOOGLE GLASS wearable computer device

from the integrated mark In Google Inc v DktBot.org FA 286993 Nat Arb Forum Aug 4 2004 the panel wrote 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

top-level domain gTLD com In Google Inc v Moussaev FA 1344102 Nat Arb Forum Oct 7 2010 the panel found that the additions of the term apps and the gTLD com to the complainant s mark did not negate a finding of confusingly similarity Therefore

s MARLBORO mark In Google Inc v Java Den Web Solutions FA 1355351 Nat Arb Forum Mar 20 2011 the panel stated that tarnishment usually involves a deliberate attempt to devalue a mark by associating it with things that dilute or damage its

Policy Paragraph 4 a i See Google Inc v DktBot.org FA 286993 Nat Arb Forum Aug 4 2004 finding that 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

see further Google Inc v Xtraplus Corp D2001-0125 WIPO Apr 16 2001 Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4 a i of the Policy in relation to each of the domain names in dispute Rights or

the disputed domain name 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

app stores might exist Google runs its own Android application store Google Play The Google Play store is also embedded in OS Android thus it is a default app store for every OS Android device Most of the users use the services available

Policy Paragraph 4 a i 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

by providing exhibits of a Google search for the term gongshow and gong show See Complainant s Exhibit 5 and 6 Further Complainant provides exhibits detailing its established reputation on social media sites such as Instagram Twitter and

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

Nat Arb Forum July 31 2009 Google Inc v Wolfgang Sauer / W.B Sauer / Wolf Internet Services LDC / Keith Carpenter FA1202001430759 Nat Arb Forum Apr 17 2012 and Société des Produits Nestlé SA v Wolf Internet Services LDC Wolfgang Sauer

Nat Arb Forum May 15 2013 Google Inc v PPA Media Services / Ryan G Foo FA 1468207 Nat Arb Forum Dec 12 2012 Previous panels have held that prior UDRP proceedings against a respondent is sufficient to find a pattern of bad faith registration

MARRIOTT mark 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