Respondent s domain names 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

to 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

domiciled in Canada a Google search at the time for COMPUTOP would have disclosed the existence of Complainant Complainant contends that the defense of laches is not available in UDRP proceedings In its Additional Submission Respondent

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 Complainant

and the domain names 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

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

to Complainant s 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 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 pursuant to

the USPTO and the SIPO 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

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

is therefore Ordered that the googlefibertothehome.com domain name be TRANSFERRED forthwith from Respondent to Complainant Terry F Peppard Panelist Dated July 26 2011 e mail single member googlefibertothehome com postmaster@googlefibertothehome

marks with the 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 Complainant has

of confusing similarity 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

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

Policy Paragraph4 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

site at hppre.com displays Google AdSense ad banners he indicates that to date he has earned only 1.14 from Google AdSense See Response Exhibit 4 In addition after receiving the complaint Respondent blocked all AdSense categories relating to

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

or not a rather obvious Google search for the dot easy or dot easy host search terms Had Respondent conducted such a search he would have found Complainant appearing in the first four places of the list as did the Panel on July 26 2011 The

on the Internet search engine Google.com for pru yields numerous third-party webpage results including playgrounds computer networking finance the stock market construction rugby music etc Complainant did not register the sole term PRU Trademark