the disputed domain name 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 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

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

the right of trade mark like google or Microsoft or yahoo or such But words like monroe or Michael are such that people can file trademark on such words or its derivatives and others cannot use in one form or the other Having queried the word

of confusing similarity See Google Inc v DktBot.org FA 286993 Nat Arb Forum Aug 4 2004 The Panel emphasizes that this element of the Policy focuses on a simple comparison of the mark and domain name rather than on the issue of trademark

use as evidenced by a Google search for viking which returns about 74600000 hits including numerous commercial and noncommercial uses Viking Office Products clearly does not have any right to expect that a reasonable person will associate

El gráfico de Google presentado por el Demandado se refiere a una fecha a partir del 15 de marzo de 2011 lo que demuestra ningún uso anterior a la Demanda Los actos posteriores a la interposición de la Demanda confirma la

but even a superficial Google search reveals that the text about the cephalopod species that appears on the Respondent s website appears wholly copied from other sites Accordingly the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the

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

registration No 5558973 GOOGLE with the filing date of December 7 2009 and many more The Complainant also developed its presence on the Internet and is the owner of domain names which contain the mark GOOGLE For example google.com google.net

reflecting his expenditure on Google advertising good will generated and promotion of the web site He says the Complainant declined the offer and it was agreed that the Respondent s company would continue to use the disputed domain names and the

and/or service marks Google searches of accountemps officeteam and officeteamstaffing demonstrated that RHI dominates the search results and it disproves the assertion that the Respondent s activity has done RHI harm or that it is likely

Policy Paragraph 4 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

of 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 Am Int

Respondent was told that a Google search did not lend any information whatsoever on an AirFX wind tunnel Respondent responded with a threat to sue Complainant asserting he was an attorney B Respondent Complainant only acquired federal

연결시켜 주고 있다 9 google.com이� google.co.kr에서 verision이라� 표� �을 � 색� 면 verision과 직접 � 련된 것� � � �� 않고 � 정된 � 색어인 verizon을 � 색한 결과� � � �다 10 � �신청인이

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

from Complainant s 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 the respondent merely added common terms such as buy or gear

to be running this model Google-YouTube and CheezBurger.com Respondent states that a recent 2010 book by Harold Davis Google Advertising Tools describes in detail how a person can create a Youtube-type channel for generic domains Respondent

name from a given 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