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

and 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

complainant s famous 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

construction site provided by Google Apps that displays the notice If you are the domain administrator get started creating your home page with Google Sites Respondent s use of the Domain Name in connection with Google Apps and Google Sites

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

Respondent explains how Google Maps illustrates how this is done After creating a map one may mark it public which means that it can be discovered by search services or private which means that visitors must have the exact URL to get to the

legitimate interests See e.g Google Inc v Texas Intl Property Assocs FA 1212995 Nat Arb Forum Aug 25 2008 In the Panel s view Respondent has met this burden Respondent is using the disputed domain name for a website devoted to criticism and

to trademark use including GOOGLE ADSENSE GOOGLE ALERTS GOOGLE BLOG GOOGLE CALENDAR GOOGLE EARTH GOOGLE LABS GOOGLE READER GOOGLE VOICE Complainant argues that Internet users will associate the combination of its GOOGLE trademark and the word

used in bad faith see also 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

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

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

Policy Paragraph 4 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

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

revenue on them from Google AdSense The book informs readers that if they limit their extortion demands to between 300 and 2000 it is likely the companies will pay those amounts rather than face the increased costs of legal fees in

CRAFTSMAN mark by providing Google Ad Networks generated links to construction-related websites even if not in direct competition with Complainant s products and services Such competing use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a

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

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

there is no such address A Google search on the telephone number shows that this is actually the telephone number for M&M Meat Shop in Spruce Grove Alberta with no affiliation to Brian Wong or the provided address Additionally and similar to the

to 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

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