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 see also

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

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

under the Policy 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 see also

registrations for its GOOGLE mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office USPTO GOOGLE 2806075 January 20 2004 GOOGLE 2884502 September 14 2004 GOOGLE 2954071 May 24 2005 GOOGLE 3140793 September 12 2006 GOOGLE 3570103 February 3

including the following USPTO GOOGLE 3570103 issued Feb 3 2009 GOOGLE 3140793 issued Sept 12 2006 GOOGLE 2954071 issued May 24 2005 GOOGLE 2806075 issued Jan 20 2004 GOOGLE 2884502 issued Sept 14 2004 Virgin Islands GOOGLE 4474 issued July 21 2006

to Policy Paragraph 4 a i 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

2003 and a screenshot from Google dated May 11 2010 were produced The Respondent is the contact person of Shenzhen Yong Xang Shang Industrial Equipment Company Limited which is apparently the operator of the website using the disputed domain

complainant s mark see also Google Inc v Xtraplus Corp WIPO Case No D2001-0125 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

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

Paragraph4 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

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

a/k/a Josh Green supra citing Google Inc v wwwgoogle.com and Jimmy Siavesh Behain WIPO Case No D2000-1240 Casio Keisanki Kabushiki Kaisha Casio Computer Co Ltd v Jongchan Kim WIPO Case No D2003-0400 and Downstream Technologies LLC v Bartels System

template website powered by Google Sites Sample pages of what appears when an Internet user enters the address www.harrods-ltd.com have been furnished as an annex to the Complaint The Complainant submits that the Respondent s domain name suggests

such as bing.com yahoo.com or google.com The Respondent says that it makes no claim to be associated or affiliated with the Complainants and its services differ from those which are or could be provided by the First Complainant The Respondent adds

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

domain names in 2010 A simple Google search of lego would have produced hundreds if not thousands of hits Indeed the disputed domain names suggest to common sense that they were chosen to lure Internet users to a website selling LEGO branded

marks with the USPTO 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

in Scotland and a Google search of University of Abertay Dundee returns 134000 results The Domain Name was registered by the Respondent on September 18 2009 The Domain Name redirects users to www.abbeycollege.info Abbey College is

purposes of the Policy See Google Inc v Xtraplus Corp D2001-0125 WIPO Apr 16 2001 finding that a respondent s domain names were confusingly similar to a complainant s GOOGLE mark where that respondent added common terms such as buy or gear to