www google Bloomberg U S e g googlevideo googlevideos googlemovie googlemovies googleforums googlewebmaster pepsiadventure net pepsitennis googlevideodownload googledatadrive googlenetstorage googlewebdrive googlewebstorage mygoogledrive

first or variations when a Google search is conducted The Panel notes that the evidence in this regard is weak as the search results actually include the Complainant s websites and other non-probative references One of those references is to a

Case No D2004-0784 citing Google Inc v wwwgoogle.com and Jimmy Siavesh Behain WIPO Case No D2000-1240 Casio Keisanki Kabushiki Kaisha Casio Computer Co Ltd v Jongchan Kim WIPO Case No D2003-0400 Downstream Technologies LLC v Bartels System GmbH

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 second

that Respondent registered googledu.com is confusingly similar to Complainant s GOOGLE mark 2 Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the googledu.com domain name 3 Respondent registered and used the googledu.com domain name in

The disputed domain names google-bih.com google-crnagora.com googlecrnagora.com google-hrvatska.com googlehrvatska.com google-montenegro.com googlemontenegro.com and googlesrbija.com are nearly identical or confusingly similar to the

and other websites Even a Google search which limits results to dates between 2003 and 2005 and excludes Complainant s own websites shows how extensive was the reputation of the WORDPRESS Mark during Complainant s early history In 2006

standards of the Policy 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

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 Because

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 Brink s Network Inc v

rights because of the high Google search rank for Complainant when using the search term Development Credit Bank Complainant requests the Panel to direct the Registrar to transfer the disputed domain name to Complainant B Respondent Respondent

from Complainant s 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

operates or resides 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

Complainant s rights in its GOOGLE trademark therefore have priority under the Policy over any rights Respondent might have in its googleone.com domain name Respondent s googleone.com domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant s GOOGLE

Moreover a search via Google or other search engine using the keyword areva or usareva would reveal information about the Complainant It can be assumed that the Respondent registered the Domain Name even though he was well aware of the

org to Complainant s 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

word domain name performing a Google search without quotes produces irrelevant results The results for a Google search of asso intesa without quotes will show all content which references both words independently even if those words are separated

arbitration forum DECISION Google Inc v WishName.com Claim Number FA1105001388788 PARTIES Complainant is Google Inc Complainant represented by Karen A Webb of Fenwick & West LLP California USA Respondent is WishName.com Respondent China

u In addition a search on the Google® search engine for amúgy generates a return of tens of millions of related websites none of them belonging to or associated with Complainant Respondent contends that the homepage of the site at the disputed