banner advertisements and Google advertisements Complainant notes that the advertisements and links are for both competing and unrelated businesses and websites Complainant contends that Respondent receives click-through or pay-per-click

i identical analysis 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

Nat Arb Forum June 7 2004 and Google Inc v Xtraplus Corp D2001-0125 WIPO Apr 16 2001 The Panel therefore finds that Respondent s statefarmroofclaim.com domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant s STATE FARM service mark under Policy

WIPO July 13 2000 and Google Inc v DktBot.org FA 286993 Nat Arb Forum Aug 4 2004 the panels found that the addition of a letter does not significantly distinguish a disputed domain name In Nev State Bank v Modern Ltd Cayman Web Dev FA

and services offered 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

s LULULEMON mark 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

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

Name from the mark 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

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

of Respondent web page and Google own explanation of Google AdChoices program shows that it can and will In this regard Complainant relies upon the Google website as to what Google envisages about its AdChoices program See Exhibit 4 What are

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

The web site does contain Google Adwords which were installed to pay for site upgrades Respondent says the web site has only made 149 and the cost of the new website was over 1000 Respondent has used the profit from the advertising to put it

of 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

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 Further the

Paragraph 4 a i analysis 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

resolve to a directory of Google AdSense listings for companies selling products in competition with Complainant The display of such competing links on the disputed domain names resolving website the Panel finds is neither a bona fide offering

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

name airmauritius.mobi with Google Yahoo etc in 2009 but ceased development until 2012/2013 when smart phones will be widely available 5 Respondent denies that Complainant have rights on the disputed domain names since they are identical to its

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 WEBOS mark