to Complainant s 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

complainant s mark 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 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

Paragraph 4 a i See also Google Inc v DktBot.org FA 286993 Nat Arb Forum Aug 4 2004 finding that a complainant established rights in the GOOGLE trademark through its holding of mark registrations around the world Respondent s

acquired secondary meaning A Google search for the term Lamborghini returns 35900000 hits the first thirty of which pertain to its cars The Complainant states the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its mark as each of the domain

a copy of the first page of Google results for grundfos indicating that the term yields 1.4 million hits when searched Further Complainant cites Grundfos A/S v Orion Web WIPO Case No D2005-0618 which concludes that the GRUNDFOS trademark must be

and 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

uses of the term evidenced by Google search results including Texas Sports Builder Texas Sports Writers Association Texas Sports Reach and Texas Sports Hall of Fame Respondent asserts its registration of the Domain Name was entirely in good faith

was visually similar 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

Complainant asserts that a Google search for pantaloons produced over 800000 hits almost all of which were associated with Complainant Complainant contends that Respondent has an established pattern of registering domain names that contain marks

is that Complainant placed a Google Adwords bid for the keyword cygnet and authorized Google to syndicate this ad across Google s partner network which at the time included the disputed domain name Complainant s ad presumably would also have

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

Arbitration Forum DECISION Google Inc v Rocco Mancini Claim Number FA1005001324487 PARTIES Complainant is Google Inc Complainant represented by Meredith M Pavia of Fenwick & West LLP California USA Respondent is Rocco Mancini Respondent

with the letter e 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

GENERAL mark 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

Name from the mark 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

sur le moteur de recherche Google Le Requérant fait valoir que le nom de domaine litigieux reproduit à l identique la marque dont il est titulaire et la dénomination sociale de son entreprise Il ajoute à cet égard que l adjonction d un

No FA 791657 November 13 2006 Google Inc v Jennifer Burns NAF Claim No FA 726096 August 16 2006 The Cheesecake Factory Inc and The Cheesecake Factory Assets Co LLC v Say Cheesecake WIPO Case No D2005-0766 September 12 2005 Napster Inc v Giovanni

Case No D2004-0784 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 Downstream Technologies LLC v Bartels System GmbH

similar analysis 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