of Policy Paragraph 4 a i See 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 Complainant

to Policy Paragraph 4 a i 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

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

Policy Paragraph 4 b iv 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

GENERAL mark see also Google Inc v DktBot.org FA 286993 Nat Arb Forum Aug 4 2004 where the panel held that confusing similarity is amplified when an infringing domain name merely adds a single-character to a complainant s mark The Panel

that there is evidence that a Google search for Complainant s business takes Internet users to a listing of the appledentalmilton.com domain name in a search result with a blurb that boasts the availability of sex chats with adults through the

Policy Paragraph4 a i and Google Inc v Xtraplus Corp D2001-0125 WIPO Apr 16 2001 finding that the respondent s domain name was confusingly similar to Complainant s GOOGLE mark where the respondent merely added common terms such as buy or gear

that may be bought 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

purchase CHAN LUU goods 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

Policy Paragraph 4 b iv 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

name because it resolves to a Google error page and not an active website and as such Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use 9

complainant s marks Also in Google Inc v DktBot.org FA 186993 NAF August 4 2004 it was said that the mere addition of a single letter to a complainant s mark does not remove the respondent s domain names from the realm of confusingly similarity

Policy Paragraph4 c iii See Google Inc v Gridasov FA 474816 Nat Arb Forum July 5 2005 finding that the respondent s use of a disputed domain name that attempts to download malicious computer software into the computers of those who visit the

to an error page stating Oops Google Chrome could not find http Inactive holding of a domain name does not qualify as a bona fide offering or legitimate noncommercial use of the domain name See Bloomberg L.P v SC Media Servs & Info SRL FA 296583

with that name and its Google search for AbbVie Company reveals only Complainant Respondent is actually known as David Reed and there is no evidence in the record which otherwise suggests that Respondent is commonly known by the at-issue

Complainant asserts that a Google search for the term EMERSON INDUSTRIES shows links to a number of Complainant s websites Complainant also notes that Respondent most likely did not independently devise its business but instead sought to take

of this 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

arbitration forum DECISION Google Inc v Privat Person / Boris Gubarev Claim Number FA1306001505574 PARTIES Complainant is Google Inc Complainant represented by Katie Krajeck of Cooley LLP California USA Respondent is Privat Person / Boris

has managed to position in google above their site memyelos.com Had Syneron s website been better or had they invested the time and effort that we have we would not be having this dispute for they would have been at the top of google Complainant

evidence from Yahoo And Google searches on K9 CLUBHOUSE arguing that the results show confusion among Internet users which allows Respondent to capitalize on the goodwill associated with Complainant s mark Previous panels have held that a