it has top ranking at Google.com and the Complainant want to take it down or want to take its ownership to use it for his/her own interests It is not using bad faith of Complainant s trademark because it is already top ranking website C

Domain Name to connect to a Google parking page and seeking transfer of the Domain Name The Respondent replied by email the same day explaining that the use being made of the Domain Name was only a temporary use and would be replaced by a

of confusing 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

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

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

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

Spanish language and that a Google search for accion resulted in 113 million results Based on this Respondent asserts that acknowledging exclusive rights in the word accion based on Complainant s registrations would discriminate against the 153

from Complainant s 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

to 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

s protected mark 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

системы Google находится по ад� есу www.google.com �'еб-сайт Google является одним из самых популя� ных в сети � нте� нет а б� енд Google и компания

1 3 5 15 www pfluegerfishing google fishusa info@pflueger Pfluegerhonda C @Six Net MetroIndex PFLUEGER B V G R FishUSA i e info pflueger.com Six.Net and or t a d b logo slogan

services A surname search on Google shows 106000 references to Averitt The Respondent was formed only 3 years ago but has collected several surname domain names Several were exhibited to the Response although only averitt.com could be said to be

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

NATIONAL CAR RENTAL mark 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

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

redirect the domain to a Google search on the term open society which brings up the Complainant s web site among others Considering the totality and the substance of the evidence and submissions I find that the Respondent s version of events

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

omitted the letter i 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

top-level domain 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