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

by Respondent is a search on Google of the terms dance partner and dance partners that returned 815000 to 942000 hits Complainant argues that this is not compelling or even helpful where Respondent fails to provide any qualitative analysis A

to Policy Paragraph4 b iv See Google Inc v Bassano FA 232958 Nat Arb Forum Mar 8 2004 holding that the respondent s use of the googlesex.info domain name to intentionally attract Internet users to a website featuring adult-oriented content

the domain name ii Google Inc v DktBot.org FA 286993 Nat Arb Forum Aug 4 2004 The mere addition of a single letter to the complainant mark does not remove the respondent domain names from the realm of confusing similarity in relation to

distinguishable 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 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 Respondent

close to 40000 per year on Google advertising and 50000 annually on industry trade shows Complainant states that by the time Respondent registered the disputed domain name in June 2007 Complainant was generating over 500000 in revenues and had

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

with the letter e 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

registrations see also Google Inc v DktBot.org FA 286993 Nat Arb Forum Aug 4 2004 finding that a complainant had established rights in the GOOGLE mark through its holding of trademark registrations around the world Respondent s

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

conducted a search on the Google search engine on May 5 2011 of the qvc abbreviation The three first results referred to the Complainant while the fourth one referred to the Respondent s site The fifth and following results referred to the

use that may be found via Google searches Complainant alleges that Respondent s only interest in the domain name is to block its commercial use by Complainant and to profit from a possible future sale of the domain name to Complainant

issued September 1 2005 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

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 confusingly 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

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

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

search engine which just like google.com or yahoo.com enables users to visit it in order to search the web for job postings for a vast number of job websites Respondent s site at JobsPing.com is not an employment placement service and therefore

0 revenue According to Google listings DiningChicago.com Dining Chicago Restaurant Guide features restaurants menus ratings and reviews and streaming videos Whereas BestoftheBestDiningChicago.com Best of the Best Dining in Chicago provides a