regarded as illegitimate by Google further substantiate a finding that Respondents have illegitimately attempted to extract benefit from the fame and goodwill of Complainant BRICO DEPOT trademarks by attracting Internet users to the website at

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 names 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

generic term that appears in Google search 192000 times The Respondent claimed to be developing a website in connection with the disputed domain name and to have invested in it a considerable amount of time and financial effort The Respondent said

search results produced from Google search engine at Annexes D E F and G to the Complaint The Panel accepts that the mark ZYNGA has gained distinctiveness through the Complainant extensive use and therefore the Complainant has acquired rights in

GENERAL 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

those are generated by Google which attempts to portray what the local viewer is interested in Respondent is not required to show that it has a superior right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name but only a right or legitimate

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

its mark with the USPTO 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

Paragraph 4 a i 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

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

that a search for Leyton on Google yields 3.5 million hits most of which have nothing to do with the Complainant The Respondent alleges that he registered the disputed domain name to use it in connection with a website providing information on

These appear to be Google-sourced advertisements The information provided in this window also includes a hotel description list of facilities information on check-in and check-out and nearby attractions and makes the following statement

Master displays 447000000 Google search results and the word Card displays 752000000 Google search pages and the word online displays 3170000 000 Google search results The Respondent argues that people have the choice of using three dictionary

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

in spelling 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

chosen to be embedded youtube google video etc etc footage based on AU television terrestrial pay tv or otherwise automatically Respondent further alleged that Yahoo has misrepresented to ADR by informing them that he used its trademark name or

in 1997 In 2006 the verb to google was added to the Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary and to the Oxford English Dictionary meaning to use the Google search engine to obtain information on the internet The Complainant Google Network which

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