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

the most cursory search on Google Yahoo Baidu or any similar search engine or had it done a search of the US or Chinese trademark registries it would have quickly learned that Complainant s XEROX trademark is world famous is covered by many

in some jurisdiction 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 the requests stats in Google Keyword Tools Moreover we didn t want neither make sites identical to Rapidshare.com clones nor do cyber squatting But if nevertheless we have really broken copyrights of Rapidshare A.G owners we are ready to

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

only real function was to run Google advertisements for companies offering swine flu-related products and services Also Respondent acknowledges that while the website did contain news-related information it was never updated Respondent admits that

simply because it has 3 Google Adsense ads on respondent s site when in fact the complainant had an employee sign-up for hosting on respondent s site The respondent states that on February 10th 2010 Mr Bryan Muthig had signed up for a hosting

in the requests stats in Google Keyword Tools Moreover we didn t want neither make sites identical to Rapidshare.com clones nor do cyber squatting But if nevertheless we have really broken copyrights of Rapidshare A.G owners we are ready 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

in some jurisdiction 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

the main search engines Yahoo Google AltaVista Altaweb etc immediately enters into contact also with the web sites managed by the defendant which falsely appear as being accredited by Fondazione Arena and which are structured so as to offer

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

and easier search on Google would have shown that CHUPA CHUPS is a trademark widely advertised and used by the Complainant and that considering the special and non-descriptive nature of the Trademark must have been familiar and known 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

that incorporates the mark GOOGLE is insufficient in and of itself to confer requisite and sufficient distinctiveness to avoid user confusion between the domain name googleoutdoors.com and the mark GOOGLE Id Likewise adding the word outdoor to

assertions Respondent s googlebooks.com domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant s GOOGLE mark Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the googlebooks.com domain name Respondent registered and used the

WIPO Case No D2000-0047 See Google Inc v Jon G FA 106084 Nat Arb Forum Apr 26 2002 See Janus Int l Holding Co V Rademacher D 200-0201 WIPO March 5 2002 See M Shanken Commc ns v WORLDTRAVELERSONLINE.COM FA 740335 Nat Arb Forum Aug 3 2006 See Bank

in some jurisdiction 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

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

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