Paragraph4 a i see also Google Inc v DktBot.org FA 286993 Nat Arb Forum August 4 2004 finding that the complainant had established rights in the GOOGLE mark through its holding of numerous trademark registrations around the world 4 See Altec

seemingly operates 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

domain name In Google Inc v Petrovich FA 1339345 Nat Arb Forum September 23 2010 the panel determined that the attempt to download malicious software was evidence of bad faith Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent s registration

from the mark as well 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 first ten pages of a Google search for the terms NJ TURNPIKE and GARDEN STATE PARKWAY which demonstrate that Respondent took pains to hide his websites Respondent will suffer no undue prejudice if ordered to transfer the domain name as

com was irrelevant 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

Twitter Instagram YouTube Google and other websites Complainant has operated and maintained the myaspenheights.com domain name since early 2009 Complainant operates student housing including luxury apartment complexes in nine states in close

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

services A search using the Google search engine for the term ehow returns over 26000000 search results the top 50 search results which all pertain to Complainant and Complainant s goods and services The EHOW® trademark has thus developed

could support that claim is a Google Analytics report giving statistics of Internet visitors to Complainant s www.do512.com website As Respondent rightly submits those statistics are of user traffic and are at best a very indirect measure of

the most cursory search on Google Yahoo Bing or any similar search engine or had it done a search of the US or other countries trademark registries it would have quickly learned that Complainant s XEROX trademark is world famous is covered by

responded to this by adding a Google blurb for the crossfitmisfits.com domain name that contains laudatory and commendable language about CROSSFIT and the Complainant s business CrossFit is a core strength and condition program We have designed our

Policy Paragraph 4 a i 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 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

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

are not similar based on Google s unbiased algorithm the disputed domain name is not in the list of top 100 websites that Google considers related to Complainant s website Respondent claims that its site is a blog that consists of after

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 see also

Policy Paragraph 4 a i 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 the complainant s business 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

of actual confusion and finds Google web search analyses inconsistent As to bad faith the Respondent registered the disputed domain name on May 18 2008 at a time when the Complainant s former registered trademark had lapsed The Respondent did not