Policy à Paragraph4 a i See Google Inc v DktBot.org FA 286993 Nat Arb Forum Aug 4 2004 â ¬ÅThe mere addition of a single letter to the complainantâ ¬ ¢s mark does not remove the respondentâ ¬ ¢s domain names from the realm of confusing

about the website as well as Google AdChoices links to fitness products The Panel finds that Respondent s use of the disputed domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy Paragraph 4 c i or a legitimate noncommercial

the domain name from the mark Google Inc v Amcore & Company For Sale Domains 250 or Best Offer FA 0405000267534 Nat Arb Forum June 21 2004 the addition of generic or descriptive terms such as pages and me does not negate the confusing similarity

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 5 See Altec

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

parties like DUPONT FEDEX GOOGLE and WALT DISNEY Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant s MORGAN STANLEY mark when Respondent registered the disputed domain name B Respondent The named Respondent says that he has never

of the mark s fame via a Google search returning results almost exclusively relating to Complainant In Tuxedos By Rose v Nunez FA 95248 Nat Arb Forum Aug 17 2000 the panel found that a complainant had established secondary meaning in its mark

such as Apple Bing Geek Squad Google Microsoft and Walmart The Respondent s registration of a second domain name containing the YAHOO mark as well as other domain names containing third-party marks is evidence of bad faith registration and use in

arbitration forum DECISION Google Inc v yang yongjin / yangyongjin Claim Number FA1208001458801 PARTIES Complainant is Google Inc Complainant represented by Katie Krajeck of Cooley LLP California USA Respondent is yang yongjin / yangyongjin

search online a simple Google or any other search engine using the keyword Accor shows that all the first results relate to Complainant The same occurs when using the keywords Carte Bienvenue Accor Complainant further contends that the use

trademark registrations 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 Also the Panel

per se Performing a simple Google search for the term VIRGIN MOBILE shows links to the Complainant s websites and numerous articles from publications See Caesar World Inc v Forum LLC WIPO Case No D2005-0517 given the Complainant s worldwide

of good or services see also Google Inc v Gridasov FA 474816 Nat Arb Forum July 5 2005 finding that the respondent s use of a disputed domain name that attempts to download malicious computer software into the computers of those who visit the

or its XYREM mark See e.g Google Inc v Texas Int l Property Assocs FA 1212995 Nat Arb Forum Aug 25 2008 Complainant asserts that Respondent had constructive notice of Complainant s mark as a result of Complainant s US and EU trademark

Salty Dude as even today a Google search for The Salty Dude leads immediately to his web address Secondly the above analysis shows that there was a commercial element in the use of the domain names which puts it outside paragraph 4 c iii of the

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

arbitration forum DECISION Google Inc v Gintog / Yuriy Gintog Claim Number FA1208001456306 PARTIES Complainant is Google Inc Complainant represented by Kathlyn Querubin of Cooley LLP California USA Respondent is Gintog / Yuriy Gintog Respondent

throughout the world 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

domain name from a mark 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

s purported location 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