as a simple search on the Google.com search engine on the words used In addition to this Complainants state that their trademarks are globally well renowned as discussed above and even if Respondent failed to conduct appropriate searches it is

October 27 2010 1 A Google search for intopicmedia.org revealed cached copies of pages from the website D2010 1413 D2003 0850 0829 Mary Lynn D2000 0004 D2006 1374 D2007 0593 well stated D2004 0110 D2001 0121 No.D2000 0076 0141 0190 0014

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

with 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

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

gTLD com was added 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

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

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

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

complainant s marks 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

because of that If you use Google to search for tqualizers you will see Respondent comes up first and second in the unpaid pure organic search The Complainant comes up 4th after the YouTube videos results Complainant is also acting in bad faith

GENERAL mark 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

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

gTLD com was added 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

the most cursory search on Google Yahoo or any similar search engine or had it done a search of the US trademark registry it would have quickly learned that Complainant s FANDANGO trademark is famous is covered by many registrations and is not

UDRP 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

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

complainant s marks 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

third-party websites using Google and other search engines and publishes the link to those episodes on his website As such the Respondent s website is a directory of third-party links to One Piece episodes created and hosted by third-parties