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 a 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

such as Job Openings Download Google Chrome Casino Game Rental Slot Machine Games and Online Poker Respondent offered to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant for 5000 DISCUSSION Paragraph 15 a of the Rules instructs this Panel to decide a

4 a i has been satisfied 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

can be easily recognized as Google AdSense advertisements Though the Respondent does not challenge the Complainant s contentions that the disputed domain names directed to parking pages he offers evidence that he was using on his two websites

complainant s 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

simply omitted the letter i 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

assertions 1 Respondent s google-x.com domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant s GOOGLE mark 2 Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the google-x.com domain name 3 Respondent registered and used the

generic word or term 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 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

throughout the world 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 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

assertions 1 Respondent s googlex.net domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant s GOOGLE mark 2 Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the googlex.net domain name 3 Respondent registered and used the googlex.net

name in connection with Google s AdSense program through a display of commercial advertisements and third-party links to unrelated and competing businesses Complainant s screen shot shows that Respondent has provided commentary regarding

further states that a Google search reveals that Respondent necessarily diverts business from Complainant because Respondent s website appears as the first Google result Finally Complainant argues that Respondent s attempted sale of the

the current UDRP proceedings Google Inc v Star Co Ltd FA 1245134 Nat Arb Forum Mar 25 2009 see also Do The Hustle LLC v Tropic Web D2000-0624 WIPO Aug 21 2000 stating that respondent must show a legitimate use existed before any notice to

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

of 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

Paragraph 4 a i 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

based on their interests Google advertisements provide platforms for major companies which may include clinics that offer the weight reduction technique provided by Complainant This is in Complainant s interest It does not disrupt Complainant