Nat Arb Forum Oct 14 2004 and Google Inc v Xtraplus Corp D2001-0125 WIPO Apr 16 2001 hold that the addition of generic words or phrases fails to differentiate a disputed domain from the mark it is allegedly infringing Therefore the Panel finds 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 Thermo

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

on the search engine GOOGLE which returns approximately 34300000 search results for the term Salman Khan a The domain name s is/are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights ICANN

of compare A screenshot of a Google search for comper will be provided and which shows that in response Google suggests Did you mean compare As such the Domain is confusingly similar to BGL s domain name and trademark 13 The Registrant has no

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 see also Honeywell Int l Inc v r9.net FA

domain name from the 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

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

he is not making money on Google s success or neither uses any means to harm Google He came with an idea of making an internet site for checking the number of Google findings for a word or phrase Then he determined that kilogoogle was a term

known by the domain name 8 A Google search for designed around you returns no mention of Respondent or even the infringing site but returns a link to Complainant s website showing that Complainant is better known for the term designed around you

Mark Second cursory Google.es2 searches for portabote and porta bote return only references to Complainant s product and brand rather than any results using those terms in a descriptive manner see Exhibit A Third the primary English

Paragraph 4 c iii see also 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

advertisements from Google s AdSense program 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 the Policy these Rules and any rules

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

well as third-party links via Google AdSense and AdChoice advertisements · The Respondent profits from such advertisements through its use of pay-per-click links · The disputed domain name represents a misspelled version of Complainant s mark

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

networks such as Facebook Google Blogspot Twitter and other online sources using the same tag line and phrase Your Solution for Blue Tangerine Products since 2008 Respondent clarifies that the products are body care lotion skin care health

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

Paragraph 4 a i see also 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 regardless of whether

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