standards of the Policy See Google Inc v Xtraplus Corp D2001-0125 WIPO Apr 16 2001 finding that a domain name is left con-fusingly similar to the mark of another from which it is derived by the addition of common terms such as buy See also

arbitration forum DECISION Google Inc v Private Whois androidmarkey.com Claim Number FA1202001429705 PARTIES Complainant is Google Inc Complainant represented by Gavin L Charlston of Cooley LLP California USA Respondent is Private Whois

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 The Panel also

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 see also Am Int

domain names 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

See Complainant s Annex A 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

arbitration forum DECISION Google Inc v PrivacyProtect.org alias Jean Marie Bergeron BGSR Media Systems SA / Raul Gomez Media Enseguida SA / Juan Martin Vega Integrated Media Services SA / Gerado Gilbrano Bocas Grande Systems SA / Domain Admin

of the Policy 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

an automatic tool such as Google translator the English website denotes a fairly good knowlege of English Accordingly it is plausible that the Respondent is fluent in English or at least that he understands English without difficulties On the

of course money back from Google or other search engine firms Encl.4 Above.com PTY Ltd is its Registrar Neither Transure nor Above.com have ever been authorized to register use or adopt the trademark SBK in their business or domain names or

linking advertisements from Google s AdSense program some of which offer products in competition with the business of Complainant Respondent receives pay-per-click revenue for referring Internet traffic to the advertised businesses Respondent is

name and a mark 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 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 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

Policy Paragraph 4 a iii See Google Inc v Jon G FA 106084 Nat Arb Forum Apr 26 2002 Respondent unsupported statement that a potentially legitimate genealogy website will be coming soon will not suffice to demonstrate rights or interests under

the USPTO Complainant did a Google search for the words Munck and law and annexed to the Complaint a copy of the first page from this search Of the ten entries thereon nine referred to itself and the tenth to a Kirsten Munck who lived in the 17th

to Policy Paragraph4 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

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

in the mark registered 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

from Complainant s marks 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