Policy Paragraph 4 a ii See Google Inc v Gridasov FA 474816 Nat Arb Forum July 5 2005 finding that the respondent s use of a disputed domain name that attempts to download malicious computer software into the computers of those who visit the

addition of the gTLD org 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

and swimwear with links to Google advertisements some of which offer goods that compete with Complainant s goods Respondent presumably receives click-through fees based on the displayed links DISCUSSION Paragraph 15 a of the Rules instructs this

in a domain name 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

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

1 Respondent s dvrgoogle.com googledomainnames.com googledomains.net googledomainregistrar.com googlefantasy.com googlefantasyfootball.com googlefantasysports.com googlesuggests.com googlesuggests.net and googlesuggests.org domain names are

YOTTA in the search engine GOOGLE Not only the search showed a small number of results most of them confirm its scientific use Therefore Respondent must have had actual knowledge of the YOTTAMARK mark at the time of its registration March 2011

of confusing similarity 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

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

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

are publicly well-known A Google search may preempt the search term we buy any car after as little as we b has been typed The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its trademarks In the cases of those

five domain names including Google Inc s well-known trademark ANDROID which is used in connection with software Complainant submits that this is proof of Respondent s bad faith registration Complainant states that the domain name

家组裁决 Crocs Inc 诉 google smart 案件编号：D2011-0864 1 � 事人双方 本案投诉人� �Crocs Inc.，其位于美利坚合众国科罗拉多州尼沃特市� �投诉人的授权代理人�

that are surrounded by Ads by Google and other image advertisements that are links to businesses both in competition with and unrelated to Complainant Complainant asserts that on information and belief Respondent receives click-through fees for its

notes that undertaking a Google search for the acronym together with the term Greek results in a series of references to the biblical meaning of this acronym however the significance of this meaning is never referred to by the Complainant As a

of its trademark rights A Google search for the term Volunteering India does not show the disputed domain name in any of the initial results whereas the Complainant website ranked first on the search list The Respondent claims it registered the

uses according to searches on Google Moreover Respondent attacks Complainant s trademark affirming that for such cases the Panel should opt for common sense to overcome frivolous trademarks and reinforces that the domain name was registered before

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

domain from the mark See Google Inc v Xtraplus Corp D2001-0125 WIPO Apr 16 2001 finding that a respondent s domain names were confusingly similar to a complainant s GOOGLE mark where that respondent merely added common terms such as buy or

of bad faith use See e.g Google Inc v Forum LLC NAF Claim No 1053323 finding bad faith registration and use where googlenews.com resolves to a commercial search engine website generating click-through advertising fees The Panel finds that