s site includes paid Google ads which constitutes bad faith under the Policy B Respondent Report A Rip-off is not a conflicting name nor is it a violation of the Complainant s trademark or copyright The disputed website is a PHP clone

where as here the following Google search is performed ammco brake tire car tool coats wheel hennessy ammco removing references to brake tire car tool coats wheel and hennessy There is no evidence the disputed domain was registered with

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

s business 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

advertisement is the standard Google advertisement Google service does not necessarily mean that Respondent s website is commercial as indicated by Respondent s use of an individual as opposed to a business account with Google The slogan A Leading

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

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

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

Complainant provides Google Analytics reports that show an average of 5500 Internet users visit Complainant s websites a month Since its first use of the mark in 2000 Complainant contends that it has spent 10000 in advertising on the

s business 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

to 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

domain names see also 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

name from Complainant s GOOGLE mark by merely adding two general terms and a gTLD to GOOGLE 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

assertions 1 Respondent s googleipv6.com domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant s GOOGLE mark 2 Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the googleipv6.com domain name 3 Respondent registered and used the

a letter and a gTLD 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

registration for the mark See Google Inc v DktBot.org FA 286993 Nat Arb Forum Aug 4 2004 Complainant established rights in the GOOGLE mark through its holding of numerous trademark registrations around the world In Williams-Sonoma Inc v Fees FA

legitimate interests in the googlepersonal.com domain name 3 Respondent registered and used the googlepersonal.com domain name in bad faith B Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding FINDINGS Complainant Google Inc is owner of

trademark authority 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 s

a través de los buscadores Google Yahoo Altavista y Lycos introduciendo dicho término y en los que se verifica que la gran mayoría de las referencias obtenidas de éstos se relacionan con la Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León así como de