www.repetto.cn In addition Google or Baidu searches for the term REPETTO display results in relation with the Complainant The Complainant thus contends that the Respondent could not ignore the Complainant and its trademark As to the use 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

24HourFitness.com Download Google Chrome and others The Panel finds that such use of the disputed domain name does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy Paragraph 4 c i or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use

arbitration forum DECISION Google Inc v Sergej Valuev Claim Number FA1210001469431 PARTIES Complainant is Google Inc Complainant represented by Katie Krajeck of Cooley LLP California USA Respondent is Sergej Valuev Respondent Russia REGISTRAR

of confusing similarity 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

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 Further

indicates a referring URL of Google.com with the rest of the URL cut off This is clear evidence that Complainant entered helion.com while conducting a Google search likely in combination with another search word instead of typing helion.com

search on search engines like Google or Yahoo because Complainant has offered goods and services through the vitaminshoppe.com domain name since 1996 As such Respondent failure to explore third party rights in the trademark THE VITAMIN SHOPPE at

Policy Paragraph4 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

location in India 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

obtaining a high ranking in a Google search This is because BGL's CtM brand has become so popular and so well known users regularly search for Compare the Market If the Domain is ranked highly in a Google search users are more likely to click on

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

assertions 1 Respondent s googlesurveyjobs.com domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant s GOOGLE mark 2 Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the googlesurveyjobs.com domain name 3 Respondent registered and

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn and Google 2.The teamone-usa.net domain name is confusingly similar to the TEAM ONE mark To the TEAM ONE mark Respondent merely adds the geographic identifier usa a hyphen and the generic top-level domain gTLD net and

Further when one performs a Google search for Respondent s website itself a note comes up offering to sell the website for 4000 Respondent s disputed domain name disrupts Complainant s business as consumers who reach Respondent s website are

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 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

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 Respondent s

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

is the owner of the GOOGLE mark and created the GOOGLE name in 1997 Complainant uses the GOOGLE mark in connection with web search services search engine technology and associated products and services a Respondent registered the