generates revenue through Google AdSense by driving Internet traffic to its website The Panel finds that Respondent s use of the disputed domain name demonstrates bad faith registration and use under Policy Paragraph 4 b IV See Metro Life Ins

to Policy Paragraph4 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

as online advertisements via Google s AdSense and 5 Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in a legitimate non-commercial or fair use manner Respondent should be considered to have registered the domain in bad faith In 2008 one of the

Paragraph 4 a i The panels in Google Inc v DktBot.org FA 286993 Nat Arb Forum Aug 4 2004 and Am Int l Group Inc v Morris FA 569033 Nat Arb Forum Dec 6 2005 similarly found that a complainant establishes rights in a mark through registration of that

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

and bases this claim on the Google search results that place its own websites as the primary results when searching for National Theatre Live The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the NATIONAL THEATRE LIVE mark pursuant to

Complainant has rights in its GOOGLE mark under Policy Paragraph 4 a i by reason of its registration of the mark with a national trademark authority the USPTO See Google Inc v DktBot.org FA 286993 Nat Arb Forum Aug 4 2004 finding that a complainant

office 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 see also

primary website is located at google.com and Complainant owns and operates hundreds of additional GOOGLE formative domain names including nearly every top-level country code domain consisting solely of the GOOGLE Mark The GOOGLE search engine

making seo Optimization for Google to achieve a leading position in the search in Google and be directed traffic from visitors to the forum which would make it one of the most popular forums Information on google adwords shows that monthly

standards of the Policy 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 con-fusing similarity in

offers a link to Download Google Chrome The parking page at googlee.com also includes sponsored listings one of which offers a link to Try Google Music The use of such parking pages with competitive and noncompetitive links has been held to be

any major search engine e.g Google Bing Yahoo when searching for the domains of the Complainant It is unclear as to how else Internet users would accidentally arrive at the Respondent s domain name and be confused as to the origin of the

with the letter e 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

not show who wrote it 3 the Google search was limited to the Santa Barbara area 4 the Facebook page does not support public recognition because anyone can create a Facebook page 5 the video was a self-promotional piece done by Complainant and 6

13 2012 The panels in Google Inc v DktBot.org FA 286993 Nat Arb Forum Aug 4 2004 and Am Int l Group Inc v Morris FA 569033 Nat Arb Forum Dec 6 2005 found that holding numerous trademark registrations around the world establishes rights to

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 Metro

registered and well known 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

arbitration forum DECISION Google Inc v Compania Morales BV / Felipe Morales Claim Number FA1202001431177 PARTIES Complainant is Google Inc Complainant represented by Gavin L Charlston of Cooley LLP California USA Respondent is Compania Morales

similar 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