registrations 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 Here

the term patiokit An advanced Google search for patio kit excluding patiokits.com to avoid reference to Complainant yielded 55100000 results1 with the first two pages including the term patiokit in domains such as vinylpatiokits.com and items for

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

services in the world The GOOGLE search engine maintains one of the largest collections of searchable documents in the world Google owns numerous U.S and foreign registrations for the GOOGLE mark See Complaint Exhibits 8 8a and 8b The GOOGLE

legitimate interests See e.g Google Inc v Texas Int l Property Assocs FA 1212995 Nat Arb Forum Aug 25 2008 The Panel does not view as credible Respondent s claim that her father shares Complainant s name and in any event Respondent has admitted

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

of 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

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

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

name from the mark Panels in Google Inc v DktBot.org FA 286993 Nat Arb Forum Aug 4 2004 Granarolo S.p.A v Dinoia FA 649854 Nat Arb Forum Apr 17 2006 and Belkin Components v Gallant FA 97075 Nat Arb Forum May 29 2001 determined that adding letters

Paragraph 4 a i 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

US Branding had used paid-for Google Adwords including the words pico pico webkey Kyp pico webkey and other combinations of words associated with the Complainant s business so that Internet users inputting any of these terms in an online search

those of competitors such as Google Presumably these links generate compensation for Respondent or others This is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy 4 c i or a legitimate noncommercial or fair

it began operating under the GOOGLE name and mark in 1997 Complainant alleges that it uses its GOOGLE mark for its search engine and other Internet related services through its official google.com domain name and website Complainant presents

legitimate interests in the googlefair.com googlecon.com googlejam.com googleworld.com gmailbox.com and gmailme.com domain names 3 Respondent registered and used the googlefair.com googlecon.com googlejam.com googleworld.com gmailbox.com and

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

although it is filtered by Google due to a complaint related to the DMCA and our address 209.44.113.146/ appears in its place as the second hit There are also a whole host of comments in Spanish on the Internet in which the users confuse tarjeta

googlecloudconnect.com googledals.com googledeas.com googledels.com googledoverse.com googleeboooks.com googleeboos.com googleeffers.com googleinstan.com googleistant.com googleoffees.com googleofferd.com googleoffes.com googleofffers.com

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

is entirely generated by Google not the operator of the website who is forbidden by the terms for using Google Adsense advertisements from interfering with Google s selection The Respondent has no duty to police the use of trademark in