two terms to it 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

used in connection with a Google partner page that contains a Google search engine and posts news stories from other sources such as Reuters.com and CNNMoney.com Complainant further states that it sent a demand letter to Respondent regarding

As noted by Google for the keyword search drillspot Google suggests grainger mcmaster can and fastenal The products sold on DriiiSpot.com is closely related to these billion dollar plus companies products for the professionals As

s location in China 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

Paragraph 4 a i 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

states it is provided by Google Sites but has no content DISCUSSION Paragraph 15 a of the Rules instructs this Panel to decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy these Rules and any

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 Am Int

mark with the USPTO see also 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

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

googlewho googleiphonehd googlexian googleiphonehd2 googleyale googleiphonehd3 googleyankees googleira googleyanon googleiranianoil googleyelp googleiranoil googleyo googleirs googlezedo googleizod googlezennoh googlejaguars googlezen-noh

Policy Paragraph 4 b iv See Google Inc v Bassano FA 232958 Nat Arb Forum Mar 8 2004 holding that the respondent s use of the googlesex.info domain name to intentionally attract Internet users to a website featuring adult-oriented content

i conducting searches on the GOOGLE search engine of the Complainant and its trademark VALIUM ii reviewing recent UDRP decisions in which prior Panels held that the trademark VALIUM is well-known1 iii conducting a search of the Complainant and its

its commercial gain see also Google Inc v Petrovich FA 1339345 Nat Arb Forum Sept 23 2010 finding bad faith registration and use of a contested domain name under Policy Paragraph 4 b iv where the domain name resolved to a website that distributed

�了 baidu.com �'� Google.com 在上边，同时提供了其它可以替换 Bing 的搜索引� �供� �择� �基于目前投诉人的反馈，被投诉人可以对网站内容做� �� 的调整，以避免让网站访问�

is the number one result in Google searches for the term ‘eLeader and has been since 2002 2 As concerns Respondent's rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name the Complainant affirms that a the Respondent has never made any

in a URL 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

Policy Paragraph 4 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

from a complainant s 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

noncommercial or fair use See 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

the dominant element 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