Additionally through a simple Google search the Panel found the following domain names digitalalchemypro.com digitalalchemy.net and digitalalchemy.tv In general and especially in light of these other domain names Complainant bears the burden of

establishes rights in the GOOGLE Mark re googlevideo.com googlevideos.com googlemovie.com googlemovies.com googleforums.com and googlewebmaster.com domain names 16 The Domain Name is nearly identical or confusingly similar to Complainant s

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

it claims A simple search on Google will easily show that the name meatery has been created by others many years ago and is in existence for very many years The Respondent states that the fact that the Complainant registered a trademark in Germany

s website displays several Google ads Complainant contends that Respondent must necessarily be receiving revenue from click-through fees Respondent s Additional Submission states that Respondent will put a disclaimer on every page of the site if

a/k/a Josh Green supra citing Google Inc v wwwgoogle.com and Jimmy Siavesh Behain WIPO Case No D2000-1240 Casio Keisanki Kabushiki Kaisha Casio Computer Co Ltd v Jongchan Kim WIPO Case No D2003-0400 Downstream Technologies LLC v Bartels System GmbH

Unicaja obtenida con Google el balance de pérdidas y ganancias de la Demandante del ejercicio 2008 y otros documentos para probar el carácter renombrado y/o notorio de las marcas Unicaja en el sector bancario ii Alega que la popularidad

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 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

a/k/a Josh Green Supra citing Google Inc v wwwgoogle.com and Jimmy Siavesh Behain WIPO Case No D2000-1240 Casio Keisanki Kabushiki Kaisha Casio Computer Co Ltd v Jongchan Kim WIPO Case No D2003-0400 Downstream Technologies LLC v Bartels System GmbH

Unicaja obtenida con Google su balance de pérdidas y ganancias del ejercicio 2008 y otros documentos para probar el carácter renombrado y/o notorio de las marcas UNICAJA en el sector bancario ii Alega que la difusión y popularidad de

22000 inhabitants A simple Google search reveals hundreds of domain names which incorporate LOMA LINDA such as lomalinidamarket.com lomalinda.va.gov villaslomalinda.com lomalinda-mo.us rancholomalinda.com and lomalindavineyards.com The

a search in the search engine Google for tirebarn results in 188000 third party web pages containing the terms Respondent also points to the fact that the Complainant has known about Respondent s domain names since at least 2005 and that the delay

name from the 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

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

Ad Sense links provided by Google Respondent was aware of Complainant www.webmd.com website when it registered the disputed domain name The parties have exchanged correspondence involving these disputes but there has been no resolution 5 Parties

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 mark See also Google Inc v Xtraplus Corp D2001-0125 WIPO Apr 16 2001 finding that where respondent merely added terms such a buy or gear to complainant s GOOGLE mark these additions did not prevent the disputed domain names from

4 a i analysis 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

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