generic word or term 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

domains which have the word google in them and they are being used some of them for commercial gain However the Respondent felt that he needed to prove that he does not register domain names for commercial gain k The Respondent did not fail to

LTD WIPO Zaaknr DNL2008-0008 Google Inc v M Minnebreuker WIPO Zaaknr DNL2008-0012 en Herbalife International Inc v W Drenth WIPO Zaaknr DNL2010-0025 Terecht merkt Eiseres op dat door de integrale overname van het aan haar toebehorende woordmerk in

from Complainant s mark In Google Inc v DktBot.org FA 286993 Nat Arb Forum Aug 4 2004 the Panel held that t he mere addition of a single letter to the complainant s mark does not remove the respondent s domain names from the realm of confusing

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

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 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

Unite WIPO Case No D2001-1070 Google Inc v Thilak Raj Net Jobs WIPO Case No D2009-0033 and LEGO Juris A/S v Private Registration/Dohe Dot WIPO Case No D2009-0753 Accordingly the Panel finds that the Complainant has established element 4 a i of the

a través de los buscadores Google Yahoo Altavista y Lycos donde la mayoría de las referencias obtenidas de éstos se relacionan con el Promovente A.15 Dado el prestigio y reconocimiento de que goza la marca UANL tanto nacional como

generic word or term 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

of 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 Am Int

who type dogsbite into a Google search are seeking to find the Complainant s website When a person types the address directly into a URL bar and assumes the com extension the user will unwittingly be sent to the Respondent the Complainant s

that Respondent used with the Google service were American History life of the American way American national American rights association history society This shows that that the website has nothing to do with American Airlines or its entities A

Paragraph 4 a i analysis 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

respective complainants E.g Google Inc v Yunkook Jung FA 139101 Nat Arb Forum Mar 6 2008 Sinclairestyle S.r.l v Jung Yunkook D2008-1691 WIPO Feb 2 2009 DISCUSSION Paragraph 15 a of the Rules instructs this Panel to decide a complaint on the basis

of Policy Paragraph 4 a i 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 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

WIPO Aug 17 2007 see also Google Inc v Domain Proxies LLC FA 1324082 Nat Arb Forum Jun 10 2010 DISCUSSION Paragraph 15 a of the Rules instructs this Panel to decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in

607509 issued Aug 20 1992 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

with a holding page on which Google automatically served advertising links as was the practice with other undeveloped domain names owned by the Respondent and displayed no content likely to cause confusion with the Complainant The Respondent said