Optimization value due to Google s trust of the domain Respondent did this same technique when purchasing patentgetter.com Respondent purchased the Disputed Domain Name after Complainant let it expire on March 27 2009 The domain name has been

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

omitted the letter 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

phrase myteva is done using Google Yahoo and Bing search engines the Complainant s website fails to appear in the top 20 search results On this basis the Respondent says that the disputed domain name is not confusingly similar to the Complainant

ranks first and second in a Google search for the Complainant and no other relevant website appears to exist or be maintained by the Complainant The Respondent has recently made known his intentions to put the disputed domain name up for auction

näringslivsregistret PRV och Google för att kontrollera att namnet Skistarshop inte var upptaget Först efter Motpartens registrering av sina domännamn inlämnades den 29 januari 2009 Sökandens ansökan om registrering av varumärket

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

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

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

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

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

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

of 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

trade name However a short Google search for Boels verhuur resulted in around 20.000 hits including use of that name on Complainant s website and entries in telephone guides and company guides which are considered to be evidence of trade name

registered it An advanced Google search for true roots avoiding references to the Complainant yielded 366000 third party results The third party use of the term true roots is strong evidence that the term is descriptive Roots means among other

to 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

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

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

substantial advertising by Google for a wide range of hotels and other forms of vacation accommodation This Panel is persuaded that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name with the intention of attracting Internet users to its website

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