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

service possibly Google Adsense or DomainSponsor According to the Complainant the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith because it was registered after the Complainant s mark because it was

for Third Party Use of Google Brand Features which includes a list of registered trademarks and generic terms to those seeking to use the GOOGLE mark in their business The disputed domain names googlelistings.com googlebusinesslisting.com

attaches a printout from a google search using the term The Remarkables Respondent acknowledges that the Domain Name is not currently in use However it contends that the delay in developing the Domain Name has not been deliberate and this has

domain name resolves to a Google error webpage which displays the following announcement Oops Internet Explorer could not find nationalofficefurniture.net However the fact that the Respondent has ceased the use of the domain name does not

that a simple search via Google or any other search engine using the keywords danone or groupe danone show that all first results relate to the Complainant s products or news v That the fact that a trademark search at the date of the

Paragraph 4 a 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

from 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

income from the sale of Google advertising for various products and services 7 Decision For all the foregoing reasons in accordance with paragraphs 4 i of the Policy and 15 of the Rules the Panel orders that the disputed domain name

on the Internet and Google B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions by filing a formal response However documents and correspondence between the Complainant and the Respondent s lawyer together with an

industry with millions of Google search hits showing for the term and 1443 domain registrations incorporating the term The Respondent also submits that the Complainant has not demonstrated common law rights as it does not use GoFit as a word

from 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

into the search engine at google.com google.co.kr and google.be As the owner of multiple domain name registrations many of which are for sale and as a party to prior UDRP disputes Respondent has significant experience with domain name

WIPO Case No D2009-0962 and Google Inc v Oneandone Private Registration WIPO Case No D2009-1674 Finally the Complainant s allegations of bad faith are not contested by the Respondent The trademark registrations of record confirm the Complainant s

addition of the letter s A Google search for Flour Daniels yields at least 1570000 hits The first result listed is the Complainant s site www.fluor.com Other results reference pages within the FLUOR.COM site including careers in the company

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 Complainant

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

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 the domain names 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