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

services in the world The GOOGLE search engine maintains one of the largest collections of searchable documents in the world Google s website is one of the most popular destinations on the Internet Google also offers a wide range of other

search for NORM REEVES on the Google search engine reveals virtually exclusive references to Complainant Norm Reeves Dealerships Complainant attached the results of its Google search as Annex E to the Complaint Complainant contends that when the

dicho contenido del cache de Google o de la página original de la Demandante Que la ocupación del nombre de dominio en cuestión le impide utilizar sus marcas en Internet Que las marcas de la Demandante son ampliamente conocidas en el segmento

automatically generated by Google After the Complaint was filed a lawyer acting for the Complainant emailed the Respondent to inquire about purchasing the disputed domain name An employee of the Respondent replied offering to sell the disputed

Complainant s MACY 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

generic word or term 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

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

GENERAL mark 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

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

to it Those cases include e.g Google v Abercrombie 1 NAF Case No 0101579 Google Inc v wwwgoogle.com and Jimmy Siavesh Behain WIPO Case No D2000-1240 Google Inc v Jeltes Consulting / N Tea Pty Ltd WIPO Case No D2008-0994 Google Inc v txtcorp WIPO

and knives are typed into a Google search Puma Knives & Coast LED Lighting Products the Respondent and Puma Knife Company USA Official Online Store for Hunting Sport both appear therefore there would be no consumer confusion as to which is the

similar to it 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 googlemarketing101.com domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant s GOOGLE mark Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the googlemarketing101.com domain name Respondent registered and

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

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

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

generic word or term 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

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

and makes reference to Google search results that are said to evidence this It claims that none of the factors set out in paragraph 4 c of the Policy apply in this case Instead it contends that the registration of the Domain Name tries to