of 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

from the mark within it 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

owns trademark rights in its GOOGLE and YOUTUBE marks through its trademark registrations with the USPTO as well as several other international agencies In Google Inc v DktBot.org FA 286993 Nat Arb Forum Aug 4 2004 the panel held that 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 Therefore the

by a third party Google Respondent has never used the disputed domain name to link to or compete with Complainant s products Respondent did not register the disputed domain name with the sole intent to profit from Complainant s

Paragraph 4 b iv See also Google Inc v Bassano FA 232958 Nat Arb Forum Mar 8 2004 finding that a respond-ent s use of the googlesex.info domain name to attract Internet users to a web-site featuring adult-oriented content constituted bad faith

the term for other services A Google search of One Love produces 562 million results in which the Respondent is proportionately non-existent The majority of results have to do with the Bob Marley song The Respondent s use of the disputed domain

to did you mean as offered by Google The disputed domain names were registered rightfully by Respondent as a means to help Complainant The names route Internet traffic to Complainant s website in connection with Complainant s affiliate program with

of 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

are no searches reported by Google for the phrase enfamil formula store and thus the enfamilformulastore.info domain name has no intrinsic value 4 The enfamilformulastore.info domain name was registered and is used to regroup baby formula offers

Complainant has rights in the GOOGLE mark b Complainant is the owner of the registrations through IP Australia IPA for the GOOGLE mark e.g Reg No 788234 March 12 1999 c The coogle.com domain name is confusingly similar to the GOOGLE mark d

unique design similar to how Google uses repeating letter o s Respondent also contends that the comfort.windoows.net and comfort.windooows.com subdomains do not exist FINDINGS Complainant owns a New York state trademark registration for the

that blatantly copy the Google logo recreate the overall look and feel of the Google website and create confusion as to whether the website is sponsored by endorsed by or affiliated with Google · The Disputed Domain Name is currently being

intent of bad faith The google results are very relevant as they establish that Respondent has made no attempt to divert traffic or show any affiliation with Complainant Complainant does not establish any intent now but forecasts and

domain name resolves to a Google Apps holding page which allows Respondent to configure the disputed domain name to use a suite of Google-related services such as e-mail services Google Talk and Google Docs 8 Respondent s stanbic-bank-gh.com

Paragraph 4 a i see also 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

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

on various websites including Google Yahoo and Bing Respondents allege that 55000 a year is spent on Google AdWords to promote traffic to Respondents websites and that since services began over 20000 tickets to Complainant s events have been sold

FINDINGS Complainant is Google a company incorporated in the USA that acquired YouTube LLC in 2006 YouTube LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Google which assigned to Google all of its trademarks including the mark YOUTUBE Complainant owns

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