of confusing similarity 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

the search results of Google for UHEALTH suggest that it is the best known or most searched for entity under UHEALTH on the popular search engine Google The Respondent has no connection to the Complainant and is not a licensee of the marks

of 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

of 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

than decrease confusion 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 Paragraph4 a i See Google Inc v DktBot.org FA 286993 Nat Arb Forum Aug 4 2004 and this Panel agrees Respondent adds the generic top-level domain name gTLD com Adding a gTLD which is required for a domain name also does not adequately

domain names in this case 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

Paragraph4 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 5 See

words On February 10 2013 a Google search of university-texas returned 375000000 results On the same date an exact search of university-texas returned 1660000 results There are over 85 universities in Texas The disputed domain name is not

Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See Google Inc v Petrovich FA 1339345 Nat Arb Forum September 23 2010 finding that disputed domain names which distribute malware to Internet users computers demonstrate Respondent s bad faith under Policy Paragraph 4 b iv

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

search services in the world Google s primary website is located at www.google.com and Google owns and operates hundreds of additional GOOGLE-formative domain names including nearly every top-level country code domain consisting solely of the

with the USPTO In Google Inc v DktBot.org FA 286993 Nat Arb Forum Aug 4 2004 the panel held that the complainant s rights in its mark were shown by its various trademark registrations around the world The Panel finds that Complainant s

or contain the word Alladin A Google search for Alladin yielded about 91.8m hits Even assuming knowledge of the Complainant s trademarks before registration the disputed domain names were not registered in bad faith because none of the names is

to register or use the googleplay.biz google-play.info and google-play.org domain names 9 Respondent is not affiliated or associated with Complainant or its company 10 Respondent is not commonly known by the googleplay.biz google-play.info

restaurants When Panel made a Google search of the name Bisht Sizzlers Caterers a number of hits were immediately relevant and led to food and dining directories showing information about a Delhi catering business by that name which from all the

to Complainant s marks The google-marketing.biz domain name merely adds the term marketing to the GOOGLE mark and this term is plainly referring to the advertising services offered under the GOOGLE mark The adwords-international.com and

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

offer of goods or services Google Inc v tnt digital media NAF Decision 1424509 http //domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/1424509.htm Respondent s parking of the website to advertise services unrelated to the business of Complainant is not a

the USPTO See for example Google Inc v DktBot.org FA 286993 Nat Arb Forum Aug 4 2004 finding that a UDRP complainant had established rights in the GOOGLE mark through its holding of a trademark registration with one or more national trade-mark