trademark registration for GOOGLE the Panel is satisfied that it has trademark rights in that mark ii Complainant also claims common law trademark rights in GOOGLE PLAY by reason of secondary meaning acquired through use The term GOOGLE PLAY has

complainant s marks 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

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

Best Skin Tighteners Install Google Chrome Watch TV Episodes Online and others See Complainant s Exhibit E Complainant contends that Respondent commercially benefits from this confusion by receiving click-through fees Consequently the Panel

arbitration forum DECISION Google Inc v Google Inc Claim Number FA1304001492304 PARTIES Complainant is Google Inc Complainant represented by Nicole M Meyer of Dickinson Wright PLLC District of Columbia USA Respondent is Google Inc Respondent

contends that neither a Google search nor the unresolved domain found at tumblr.us provide any evidence that Respondent is commonly known as tumblr or tumblr.us Therefore the Panel holds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed

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 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 The second

Policy Paragraph4 a i See Google Inc v Benny Xia FA1105001388563 Nat Arb Forum June 28 2011 T he addition of the generic word one is insufficient to distinguish the resulting domain name from the mark see also U.S News & World Report Inc v

Policy Paragraph4 a iii and Google v Bassano FA 232958 Nat Arb Forum Mar 8 2004 holding that respondent s use of the googlesex.info domain name to intentionally attract Internet users to a website featuring adult-oriented content constituted bad

Respondent admits he uses Google services that are intended to generate advertising revenue 4 Respondent s use of Google s advertising services is not a bona fide offering of goods and services 5 Respondent had knowledge of the SKYPE mark in

for all domain names see also 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

has not registered them A Google search reveals many people with the Gaswirth name The Complainant has never been referred to as simply Gaswirth The evidence submitted by the Complainant is not sufficient to create secondary meaning in Gaswirth

Complainant argues that a Google search for Alphapharm Global revealed no relevant results only returning to Complainant s homepage as the top result Complainant contends that Alphapharm Global is not an entity in existence anywhere in the

links are auto-generated by Google and are constantly changing based on Google s keyword advertising inventory and user search behavior According to the Declaration of Leandra Wilfred-Boyce the director of finance and operations for Vertical Axis

products Furthermore when Google-searching silkskin on the Internet the research results display the Complainant s website on the top 2 Silk Skin Care is a salon providing skin care services having two locations in the state of California 3

from the disputed domain name 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

standards 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 a complainant s GOOGLE mark noting that t he transposition of two letters does not create a distinct mark capable

marketing program with Google Affiliate Network GAN All affiliate marketing programs require the inbound traffic to be tagged with the account ID to which it should credit any revenue generated by a sale or lead Google Affiliate Network is

Domain Name s A simple Google search on the term will result in the Complainant s mark and website This stands as proof of bad faith registration of the domain name See Yahoo Inc v Butler FA 744444 Nat Arb Forum Aug 17 2006 finding bad faith