name is based For example see Google Inc v Murong FA 1403692 Nat Arb Forum Sept 30 2011 In Liberty Mut Ins Co v Bin g Glu FA 1036129 Nat Arb Forum Sept 2 2007 the panel stated that prior UDRP proceedings against the respondent were evidence of a

addition to the term google Moreover some weight must be given to the fact that the word glass appears as a prefix to the term google On the other hand the term google is an invented word and one wholly lacking in any ordinary meaning that

disputed domain name from the GOOGLE mark c Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the googleplay-ru.net domain name a Respondent is not commonly known by the googleplay-ru.net domain name Respondent s WHOIS information in

s registration of the GOOGLE mark with the USPTO and Portugal s NIPO is sufficient to establish its rights in the mark under Policy Paragraph 4 a i See Google Inc v DktBot.org FA 286993 Nat Arb Forum Aug 4 2004 finding that the complainant

itself off as Complainant The googleplaygifts.com domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant s GOOGLE mark Respondent has not been commonly known by the googleplaygifts.com domain name and Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized

of bad faith and transfer Google Inc v Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft / Domain Admin FA 1466715 Nat Arb Forum Nov 28 2012 Getty Images US Inc v Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft / Domain Admin FA 1460731 Nat Arb Forum Oct 26

following factual grounds A Google and the GOOGLE and GOOGLE PLAY Marks 9 Google is a Delaware corporation located in Mountain View California 10 The GOOGLE name was created in 1997 by Stanford Ph.D candidates Larry Page and Sergey Brin Since

confusingly similar to NOKIA Google Inc v Leadsco FA 1267428 Nat Arb Forum July 23 2009 finding pagerankglobal.com confusingly similar to PAGERANK Reed Elsevier Inc v Pushkin Gupta FA 967682 Nat Arb Forum May 29 2007 finding nexisglobal.com

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

pepsiadventure pepsitennis googleghana googlepakistan ntester BargainDomainNames jjilll googlenews 3 7 2 DktBot org coppertown Int l postmaster google-play-ru.biz google-play-ru.net m.dowdell unholdings.com google.com www.google.com intl en

11 2013 e mail single member GOOGLE formative webnet marketing D2000 0009 top level D2002 0095 D2004 0117 well known Hanna Barbera 1100 0187 googleplacesuk com Tucows postmaster@googleplacesuk google e g WORLDTRAVELERSONLINE COM cigaraficionada

arbitration forum DECISION Google Inc v Fundacion Private Whois / Domain Administrator Claim Number FA1211001473756 PARTIES Complainant is Google Inc Complainant represented by Katie Krajeck of Cooley LLP California USA Respondent is Fundacion

25 October 24 2012 Further Google analytics indicates that Complainant has an average of 11068939 visitors per day from the US and an average of 49 million foreign visitors The Google Analytics tracking supports the Complainant s information as

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

from a registered 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

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 and noting that t he transposition of two letters does not create a distinct mark

or any name containing the GOOGLE and/or GOOGLE MAPS marks Respondent s WHOIS information makes no mention of the domain name or GOOGLE marks Furthermore Complainant has not authorized Respondent to register or use the domain name nor is

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

Complainant launched its Google Play store The google-play-market.com domain name resolves to a website that displays the heading Google-Play-Market and offers game application downloads which competes with Complainant s services found at its

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 Complainant