in Respondent s country 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

rights in the RAMADA mark 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 / SANDEEP Claim Number FA1110001413164 PARTIES Complainant is Google Inc Complainant represented by Kathlyn A Querubin of Cooley LLP California USA Respondent is / SANDEEP Respondent India REGISTRAR AND

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

with the letter e 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

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

continues to challenge Google advertising rules and guidelines for Google Adwords directly attacking Respondent Currently Respondent is at least using the keyword SYBER to try and confuse the public that is searching for Respondent This

4 a i analysis 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

advertising and to work with Google Adsense in order to defray the costs he has incurred for registration fees web-hosting services and design and programming services All advertising on the site has now been discontinued Respondent contends that

in the first 30 page of google.co.uk if one searches online backup The Complainant can refer to 50 products but with no relevance to online backup There is no confusion of the public The Complainant was made aware of the Respondent before its

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

concurrently herewith and googlecall.us which includes the famous trademark GOOGLE combined with a service offered by Google Inc This reflects a pattern of registering infringing domains and is further evidence of bad faith Based on the

domain names containing the GOOGLE mark were acquiesced to by an officer at Google but Respondent would gladly transfer rights in such domains to that company if so requested The material facts in the prior UDRP cases involving and cited by

highly distinctive 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

of Respondent s residency 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 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

confusing similarity 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

argues that Respondent s googlebug.com googlecitysearch.com g00gler.com googlesandroid.com googlesthinkquarterly.com and lifegoogle.com domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant s GOOGLE mark The Panel notes that each domain name

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

Nat Arb Forum Jan 11 2002 and Google Inc v Jon G FA 106084 Nat Arb Forum Apr 26 2002 determined that a respondent failed to make an active use of the disputed domain name when the domain name resolved to an under construction page and that this