of the Policy See for example 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 con-fusing similarity in

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

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

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

to an error page stating Oops Google Chrome could not connect to optionsxprees.us Respondent s failure to make an active use of the optionsxprees.us domain name demonstrates that Respondent is not using the domain names in connection with a Policy

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

in a URL see also 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 AdSense Wala Claim Number FA1306001506186 PARTIES Complainant is Google Inc Complainant represented by Nicole M Meyer of Dickinson Wright PLLC Washington D.C USA Respondent is AdSense Wala Respondent

arbitration forum DECISION Google Inc v Private Person / Andrey Skorodubov Claim Number FA1306001506184 PARTIES Complainant is Google Inc Complainant represented by Nicole M Meyer of Dickinson Wright PLLC District of Columbia USA Respondent is

arbitration forum DECISION Google Inc v DigitBuying Claim Number FA1306001506085 PARTIES Complainant is Google Inc Complainant represented by Katie Krajeck of Cooley LLP California USA Respondent is DigitBuying Respondent China REGISTRAR AND

up revenue for Respondent 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

one at issue googeglass.com GOOGLE Nothing or LVSE sites googelfinance.com like the one at issue googelglass.com google-es.com google-webmaster.com hhotail.com HOTMAIL Monetized parking pages hhotmial.com hhotmil.com micosofttranslator.com

for Samsung Chromebook from Google Previous panels have found evidence of bad faith where a respondent provides links to competitors of the complainant s through the confusingly similar domain name See H-D Michigan Inc v Buell FA 1106640 Nat Arb

Complainant s logo via a Google image search and used it without realizing that it belonged to a real company and subsequently deleted the logo upon receiving an objection from Complainant FINDINGS The Panel finds that the disputed domain

hyperlinks titled DOWNLOAD GOOGLE CHROME VIDEO GAMES AT REDBOX and STOP SHARING FILES ONLINE Complainant contends that Respondent is using the domain name to attract traffic and revenue using Complainant s famous trademark and to promote

s Mark is well-known A Google search of Complainant s Mark yields several pages of websites and articles related to the Complainant many of which concern Complainant s initial public stock offering that took place in October 2012 See

from 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

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

clips Furthermore since the Google AdWords results in response to the klipz.com domain name display links regarding office supplies the AdWords algorithm also seems to link klipz with clips The evidence further establishes that Complainant does

business by ranking highly on Google and by inviting persons reading the material to click through to another webpage created by Respondent the publisher of the magazine Think & Grow Rich Inc and a direct competitor in the wealth education industry