highly distinctive 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

it produced the results of a Google search on bibi run on December 9 2009 at the www.google.ch website which was said to show a site offering the Complainant products as the first hit The Complainant own website at www.lamprechtag.com was the

pseudonym When searching with Google for this name there are no hits for this name at all Following some further email correspondence between the parties the Respondent finally requested US 400000.00 for the disputed domain name For purchasing the

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

rights in the name PATEK The Google search appended to the Complaint which is relied on by the Complainant to support its contention was undertaken in February 2010 and therefore does not accurately indicate what information would have been

nor appear as result of a Google search see Leyton & Associés SAS Thésée SAS Leyton Consulting UK and Ireland Limited Leyton Maroc Leyton Belgium Leyton UK Limited v Drela Mateusz Elephant Orchestra WIPO Case No D2009-1589 with further

of 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

the disputed domain name 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

Policy Paragraph 4 a i 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 Janus

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

words to such marks 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

issued June 11 1996 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 Morgan

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

complainant s marks 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

Case No D2004-0784 citing Google Inc v wwwgoogle.com and Jimmy Siavesh Behain WIPO Case No D2000-1240 Casio Keisanki Kabushiki Casio Computer Co Ltd v Jongchan Kim WIPO Case No D2003-0400 Downstream Technologies LLC v Bartels System GmbH WIPO

Complainant also produced a Google search result list showing results of a Google search it had run in January 2010 on the expression multi-gyn gel The search results were substantially in the Dutch language and no translation was provided

and 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

that the disputed domain name googlepride.com be transferred to the Complainant Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira Sole Panelist Dated March 16 2010 D2010 0090 cost effective follow ups googlepride com PublicDomainRegistry www google U S googlemaps

Further a bare perusal of the Google search results for the keyword intermesh substantiates Complainant rights to the Disputed Domain Name As on the date of filing the present Complaint Respondent has not used the Disputed Domain Name in relation

number one ranking with both Google and Yahoo I have also received many enquiries from prospective travellers see attached ranking prints outs In its Supplemental Filing the Complainant clarifies that oneworld Management Company Limited is owned