marks of others for example googlehacks.us googlemarket.org googlegallery.com inyoutube.com farsyoutube.com yahoo260.com yahooirani.com and msnirani.com among others infringing the GOOGLE YAHOO and MSN marks respectively Nearly all of the domain

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

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

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

entering edreams into the Google search engine produces thousands of results referring to its websites and draws attention to reports about its activities in on-line newspapers The Complainant submits that the Domain Name is confusingly similar

S.A NAF Claim No FA888552 Google Inc v Raffaele Bassano NAF Claim No FA232958 Kaspersky Lab Inc v Jianjun Wang WIPO Case No D2008-1533 or other trademarks cf Intuit Inc v Pioneer Enterprises Ltd WIPO Case No D2009-1439 Furthermore it is well

The Complainant name and mark GOOGLE was coined and adopted in 1997 by the company founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin The Complainant has obtained trademark registrations for its mark Google around the world In India the Complainant mark GOOGLE

the Complainant Furthermore a Google search using the word itoken on websites written in Portuguese the official language of Brazil indicates basically addresses related to a security apparatus provided by the Complainant to some of its clients

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 see also

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

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

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

from a 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

includes search results from Google of the term DRIVE-THRU DIET which do not result in a hit of Complainant s website drivethrudiet.com for the first 100 hits of approximately 360000 total possible Moreover Respondent submitted a printout of

arbitration forum DECISION Google Inc v Tobec Acquisitions Claim Number FA0911001296156 PARTIES Complainant is Google Inc Complainant represented by Meredith M Pavia California USA Respondent is Tobec Acquisitions Respondent United Kingdom

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

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

4 a i See for example 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

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

as it is listed on Google and hundreds of customers per month contact the Respondent though the disputed name finding Respondent s email address and phone number on the website FINDINGS Scope of the Proceedings under the UDRP Respondent