to a page that imitates the GOOGLE site and purports to be a help page for GOOGLE CHECKOUT users The page incorporates the GOOGLE mark as well as reproduces the look and feel of the GOOGLE site DISCUSSION Paragraph 15 a of the Rules instructs

4 a i See for example 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 sponsored listings via the Google Ads program including links to websites advertising inter alia apartment rentals the Ameba blog service and a Japanese to English translation service As the Respondent is more than likely generating

argue that a cursory Google search would easily confirm this statement a portfolio of international press searches was also annexed to the Complaint The Complainants argue that the disputed domain name zegnagroup.com is confusingly similar

complainant s 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

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

from a 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

by one letter further see Google Inc v Jon G FA 106084 Nat Arb Forum Apr 26 2002 finding googel.com to be confusingly similar to a complainant s GOOGLE mark and noting that t he transposition of two letters does not create a distinct mark

conducted through third-party google.com returned almost 2000 results and other news database searches through third-party lexisnexis.com yielded over 130 articles that directly cite to Complainant and the acronym CRM Therefore the Panel finds that

s rights in the VEDA mark 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

s ACCUTANE mark 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

and the gTLD com or net 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

such as Internet Explorer and Google Chrome The Complainant says that it has never licensed or authorized the Respondent to register or use the Complainant s marks The Panel s Visit to the College Website On November 9 and November 22 2010 the

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

le choix du prestataire Google pour les publicités à afficher Le lieu géographique où se situe le visiteur ainsi que les précédentes recherches qu il a effectué sur le moteur de recherche Google font que différentes publicités sont

confusingly similar 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

Case No D2004-0784 see also Google Inc v wwwgoogle.com and Jimmy Siavesh Behain WIPO Case No D2000-1240 The evidence also shows that as has occurred in the five prior complaints filed Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for

verschiedenen Treffer bei der Google-Suche beweisen würden Nicht die Abkürzung žcci sei geeignet auf eine Handels und Industriekammer hinzuweisen sondern vielmehr nur der vollständige Name žChambre de commerce et d industrie Auch die

Si se recurre al buscador Google y se teclea la palabra galerias no sólo no aparece el Titular del nombre de dominio en disputa sino que en los primeros lugares aparecen las marcas del Promovente El Titular antes de haber recibido cualquier

endet nutzen würden Die Google-Suche mit dem Kürzel žCPACF ergibt ca 35.000 Treffer davon betreffen rund die Hälfte die Anwaltskammer Aufgrund dieser Sachlage und im Rahmen dieses Administrativverfahrens ist glaubwürdig dass die