Policy Paragraph 4 a i 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

authority the USPTO See Google Inc v DktBot.org FA 286993 Nat Arb Forum Aug 4 2004 finding that a complainant had established rights in the GOOGLE mark through its holding of trademark registrations This is true despite the fact that

as evidenced by an advanced Google search for this combination undertaken by Respondent This it claims yielded 596000 third party search results including Reverse Home Mortgage Page Ronald McDonald House Providence Acorn Manufacturing RMHP and

50 4th ed 1998 see also e.g Google Inv v Babaian FA 1060992 Nat Arb Forum Oct 1 2007 finding that where the Registrant merely added generic words like web date drive and storage that have an obvious relationship to Google s business the domain

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

ISES as evidenced by a simple Google search Respondent contends that it has paid for and maintained the domain since 2009 and the demand to relinquish implies without compensation Complainant is without standing since a number of offers were made

from a complainant s mark In Google Inc v DktBot.org FA 286993 Nat Arb Forum Aug 4 2004 and Am Online Inc v Amigos On Line RJ FA 115041 Nat Arb Forum Aug 28 2002 the panels held that the addition of letters to a complainant s mark did not prevent

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

A/S Respondent Organization google smart Other Legal Proceedings The Panel is not aware of other legal proceedings Identification of rights Community Trademark Reg No 001149871 Community Trademark Reg No 002967040 US Trademark Reg No 1935123

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

4 a i Previous panels in Google Inc v DktBot.org FA 286993 Nat Arb Forum Aug 4 2004 and Honeywell Int l Inc v r9.net FA 445594 Nat Arb Forum May 23 2005 found that a complainant s trademark registrations around the world are sufficient for it

s business 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

UDRP Paragraph 4 a i 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

FINDINGS Complainant Google Inc holds numerous trademark registrations for the GOOGLE mark Complainant has registered the GOOGLE mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office USPTO e.g Reg No 2884502 registered September 14 2004

s Mark Additionally in Google Inc v DktBot.org FA286993 Nat Arb Forum Aug 4 2004 it was stated that t he mere addition of a single letter to the complainant s mark does not remove the respondent s domain names from the realm of confusing

Nat Arb Forum Sept 15 2011 Google Inc v Milan Kovac FA 402160 Nat Arb Forum Sept 15 2011 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

4 in 2010 and number 3 behind Google in 2009 on FORTUNE Magazine s 100 Fastest-Growing Companies list and awarded myriad industry awards such as consecutive CODIE Awards for Best CRM for its SALESFORCE CRM Suite and Best On-Demand Platform for its

of 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

Policy Paragraph 4 a i 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

used in bad faith see also 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