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

completely false as shown by Google Adwords search data In the month of Feb Google controlled 65.5 of all internet searches comScore JP Morgan analyst report Of those searches Riveron was searched over 10000 times per month 8100 of these searches

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Google Inc v ABC Trung Toan Case No D2010-0226 1 The Parties Complainant is Google Inc of California United States of America represented by Ranjan Narula Associates of India Respondent is ABC Trung Toan with an

displaying a list of ads from Google AdSense 5 Parties Contentions A Complainant The Complainant is a Dutch online broker and is listed on NYSE Euronext Amsterdam The Complainant offers access to all the important financial markets around the world

gazetesi are searched in Google search engine the Respondent s website appears on the first page of search results This directs the consumers to the Respondent s website who presumably were seeking the Complainant s website which is

of 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

and Complainant s 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

Paragraph 4 a i see also 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

in some jurisdiction see also 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

in some jurisdiction see also 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

webpage It carries Google generated click through advertisements the predominant but not exclusive theme of which is travel tourism and accommodation with some form of Turkish connection 4.8 On December 4 2009 the Complainant s business

appears as the first hit on Google when searching for the words posta and gazete i.e newspaper in the English language 5 Parties Contentions A Complainant According to the provided information by the Complainant Posta is the best-selling daily

Intel Capital Comcast Sprint Google Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks The Complainant has spent considerable amounts of money time and effort in securing developing promoting advertising and protecting its CLEAR marks As a result of

in some jurisdiction see also 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

Mark Respondent is generating Google Adsense revenue using the Disputed Domains Screenshots of the Disputed Domains show that the Disputed Domains resolve only to generic landing pages from which Respondent is deriving CPC revenue at Complainant s

and Complainant s 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

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

Russian word Koma A search on Google did not identify a single instance where the word string alveolar pulmonary edema and coma is used It is unbelievable that Respondent motivation for registering aolcom.com was to string together an acronym for

v Zuccarini supra 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

from Complainant s 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