with 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

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

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

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

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

the 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

to any existing address in Google Maps The Complainant accordingly submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant s MARLBORO trademarks that the Respondent does not have any right or legitimate interests in the

a registered trademark like Google Until there are rules established that only a company or a person with a registered trademark can register a domain name all registrations are rightful and legitimate So the Complainant claim that only its

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

Complainant says that in a Google search the name Bavaro Caribe Beach finds references only to the Complainant s hotel The Respondent has not before notice of the Complaint made any bona fide use of the disputed domain name for the offering of

by warnings provided by Google of suspected phishing report of November 12 2009 PhishTank report of October 27 2009 and Kernel Trap report of December 18 2009 There is no evidence of other usage of the disputed domain name on the record of

cz it pt ro tv google i e d o Edmunds d b a 2009 197 k

a/k/a Josh Green supra 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

that Respondent registered googlecrm.net is confusingly similar to Complainant s GOOGLE mark Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the googlecrm.net domain name Respondent registered and used the googlecrm.net domain name in bad

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

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

the USPTO and the OHIM 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

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

at one point resolved to a google search results page related to insurance the Complainant s field of business and that this combined with the continued passive holding of the other Disputed Domain Names which contain the well-known marks of the

The Complainant exhibits a Google Search for NUDURA wherein 99 of the first 100 results directly refer to its NUDURA ICF product Correspondence between the Parties 4.A.9 The Complainant asserts that in the light of the foregoing its NUDURA brand