such systems as Yahoo or Google and provided as a data feed for the purpose of monetizing domain name traffic The Respondent has discovered that common names tend to do well with advertisements for online dating services This has been the

En efecto búsquedas en Google con el keyword IBIS o NOVOTEL muestran que los primeros resultados están vinculados al Promovente El Promovente indica que teniendo en cuenta la notoriedad internacional del Promovente y sus marcas así como el

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

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 a complainant s GOOGLE mark and noting that t he transposition of two letters does not create a distinct mark

differences matter see also Google Inc v Wolfe FA 275419 Nat Arb Forum July 18 2004 The froogles.com domain name is not confusingly similar to Complainant GOOGLE mark The dissimilar letters in the domain name are sufficiently different to make it

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

GENERAL mark 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

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

vendido a empresas tales como Google o Ebay Agrega que la finalidad principal de los sitios Web a los que dirigen los nombres de dominio en disputa premiosgoya.com premiosgoya.net y premiosgoya.org es la de brindar información sobre los

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

domain name and the mark See Google Inc v Jon G FA 106084 Nat Arb Forum Apr 26 2002 finding googel.com to be confusingly similar to a complainant s GOOGLE mark and noting that t he transposition of two letters does not create a distinct mark

names and the marks 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 web site displays ads by Google indicating that the web site uses Google AdSense program This is intended to advertise the Respondent services attracting users to use these services or place their ads through this page Therefore an apparently

domain names and that a Google search does not reveal any website which suggests that Respondent has established rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names According to the Complainant through its legal representative it has

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

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

Policy Paragraph 4 a i 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

the Respondent is offering a Google-related advertisement service Given Google branding policy whereby Google typically uses its house mark GOOGLE with a descriptive word or phrase users seeing the domain name are even more likely to believe the

USA Insulation other than a Google search conducted on February 4 2010 The Complainant has complained that the Panel procedural order seeking some of this documentation gave the Complainant insufficient time to unearth it The Panel is unimpressed