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

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

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

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

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

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

hotspot There are also some Google advertisements in the form of click-on links to third party websites offering Internet-related goods or services In its Complaint the Complainant drew the Panel attention to a website operated by the Respondent

on May 30 2008 in favor of Google Inc sic 2008 pp 732 ss Journal des Tribunaux 2008 I 396-399 In the Gmail case the misuse had been to register in Switzerland a trademark not yet registered by the rightful owner abroad while in the present case

used in bad faith see also Google Inc v Bassano FA 232958 Nat Arb Forum Mar 8 2004 holding that the respondent s use of the googlesex.info domain name to intentionally attract Internet users to a website featuring adult-oriented content

by the disputed domain name A Google search reveals no reference to the use of the Complainant trademark in connection with the Respondent All this shows a lack of legitimate interest on his part in the name The Complainant has been pursuing its

has been invited to conduct a Google search using the name of the Complainant hotel complex Palais Stephanie and from the results of that search supported by the fact that the Complainant website has an English language version the Panel would have

substantial third-party use A Google search yielded many millions of results when certain terms were excluded to avoid references to Complainant Respondent also observes that there are 22 third-party registered U.S trademarks which incorporate the

Schweiz wurden bis anhin z B Google vgl Google Inc v Donna Mahony WIPO Verfahren Nr DCH2008-0017 Gucci BGE 116 II 614 Fiat vgl Fiat Group Automobiles Switzerland S.A & Fiat S.P.A v Claudio Mattioli WIPO Verfahren Nr DCH2007-0020 Maggi BGer

who assists in education A Google search for edu Helper and excluding edhelper.com shows over 3.8 MILLION results A Google search for eduhelper as a single term shows 8320 results Excluding Complainant from this search shows 8140 results There

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

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

Policy Paragraph 4 b iv See Google Inc v Bassano FA 232958 Nat Arb Forum Mar 8 2004 holding that the respondent s use of the googlesex.info domain name to intentionally attract Internet users to a website featuring adult-oriented content

web site According to Google Analytics Report 363788 visitors to the Complainant s web site only arrived there after mistakenly searching Google for vagalume.com and that 304115 visitors only arrived after mistakenly searching for

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