registered July 16 2003 In Google Inc v DktBot.org FA 286993 Nat Arb Forum Aug 4 2004 the panel concluded that holding several trademark registrations with authorities around the world establishes a complainant s rights in its mark The Panel

s business see also 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

to the Domain Names The Google AdWords website allows browsers to input hypothetical search terms and provides a range of statistics which demonstrates how many times certain terms are input by users into the Google search engine If the word

yytube Godaddy googelemaps googleail googleamaps googleboooks googledocs net googleimeges googleka googlelmaps googlemaiol googlemamps googlemaops googlemapc googlemasps googlemsil googlemsps googlermaps googlwmail wwwgooglechrome googldocs

yytube Godaddy googelemaps googleail googleamaps googleboooks googledocs net googleimeges googleka googlelmaps googlemaiol googlemamps googlemaops googlemapc googlemasps googlemsil googlemsps googlermaps googlwmail wwwgooglechrome googldocs

CONTENTIONS A Complainant A Google and the GOOGLE Mark Google is a Delaware corporation located in Mountain View California The GOOGLE name was created in 1997 by Stanford Ph.D candidates Larry Page and Sergey Brin Since that time the GOOGLE

arbitration forum DECISION Google Inc v jinbing lin / lin jinbing Claim Number FA1207001453681 PARTIES Complainant is Google Inc Complainant represented by Kathlyn Querubin of Cooley LLP California USA Respondent is jinbing lin / lin jinbing

for confusion 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

McKinsey & Company see also 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

s business Further see Google Inc v Xtraplus Corp D2001-0125 WIPO Apr 16 2001 finding a respondent s domain names confusingly similar to a complainant s mark where in creating the domain name that respondent added common terms such as buy or

competitors such as Sony and Google and to third-party tablets The Panel finds that this use of the disputed domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy Paragraph 4 c i

D2000-0441 WIPO July 13 2000 Google Inc v DktBot.org FA 286993 Nat Arb Forum Aug 4 2004 The mere addition of a single letter to the complainant mark does not remove the respondent domain names from the realm of confusing similarity in relation to

if Respondent performed a Google search of the mark prior to registering the burson-marsteller.asia domain name The Panel finds that mere constructive knowledge of a mark does not adequately support a finding of bad faith registration under

from its advertising provider google.com and Complainant has paid an advertising fee to have the link to its own website posted on advertising pages through google.com 4 The disputed domain name was not registered in bad faith and has not been used

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 4 See Altec

names from the 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

website in connection with Google advertising and Amazon.com affiliate networking which Complainant claims is commercial in nature and not a bona fide use The Panel notes that Complainant submits evidence showing a screenshot of the resolving

mark November 15 2010 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 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

a regular search engine e.g Google Yahoo With certain Internet browsers permitting end users to conduct a web search directly via the address bar e.g Google Chrome to the extent an end user adds a gTLD to their search term s a park page provides