Respondent has displayed 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

of search engines such as Google.com as shown in Exhibit I to the Complaint The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is therefore using the Complainant s trademark in bad faith The Complainant requests the Panel to issue a decision finding

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 Complainant Respondent s googleadwords.us domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant s GOOGLE mark and ADWORDS mark Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the googleadwords.us domain name Respondent registered

but he was able to access a Google cached copy of the Respondent s website as it stood at June 17 2010 The Respondent s website as it stood on June 17 2010 provided a search engine designed to search files held at various file-sharing host

advertising delivered by the Google Adwords program including advertisements promoting the services of real estate companies that compete with Complainant Subsequent to the parties submission of their Additional Submissions Respondent appears to

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

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

according to the Respondent a Google search run prior to the registration of said domain name did not disclose any companies using the trademark CREDIARE in Brazil or anywhere else Although not expressly stated in his Response it is to be

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

pointing to the following A Google search for RS brings up the Complainant s site in fourth place According to Alexa.com a provider of Internet traffic metrics that produces rankings of websites based on three months aggregated page views and

Respondent had undertaken a Google or Way Back Archival search in early 2007 it would have become aware of Complainant s trademark rights Respondent conducted a Google search for ultimate guitar in 2010 which was filed as an Exhibit The Google

MARRIOTT 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

in the KASPERSKY 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 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

and 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

supra In addition a simple Google search would have resulted in the discovery of Complainant s related products news or trademark L'oreal v Domain Park Limited Bouygues v Chengzhang Lu Ciagao Media General Communications Inc v Rarenames Webreg

found in requests stats in Google Keyword Tools Moreover we didn t want neither make sites identical to Radpishare.com clones nor do cyber squatting But if nevertheless we have really broken copyright of Radipshare AG owners we are ready to

that about 20 000 third party Google results contain the term charter business There is no evidence that the Domain Name was registered with Complainant s trademark in mind To the contrary it is undisputed that Complainant did not even commence use

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