of confusing similarity 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 Respondent provides a Google search result that is said to show that the letters are used by a number of entities including basketball club in London a company by the name of Earth Sciences Inc and an environmental surveillance centre in

also purchased both print and Google advertising featuring the ASIA REGISTRY mark The Domain Names were created in October 2008 and are registered in the name of the Respondent Domain Management SPM with a postal address in Apia Samoa It is not

are used to resolve to a Google search page displaying the posting Oops This link appears to be broken 5 Parties Contentions A Complainant The Complainant argues that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the

and the domain names 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

car bo and tex Further a Google search of CARBOTEX reveals other entities using that name in connection with numerous items including fishing accessories design services air filters and plastic resins Complainant does not show up on the Google

positioned in first place on Google Respondent suggested that someone would have to pay him back this money Several subsequent back and forth emails did not resolve the matter 5 Parties Contentions A Complainant 1 The Disputed Domain Name is

in bad faith practices A Google search query buy discount coffee online returns 114000000 hits and reveals that there are numerous companies selling coffee products online using the phrase discount coffee FINDINGS For the reasons set forth

al sitio web español de Google www.google.es Comunicaciones entre las Partes durante el procedimiento Tal y como se ha indicado con anterioridad en el presente procedimiento se han producido numerosas comunicaciones entre las partes En un

and search engines such as Google DEX Yellow Pages Yahoo MSN and Bing produce sales off clicks and the incidental use of many registered names including Nissan and Infiniti without paying for them or doing any harm Repair facilities countrywide

with the letter e 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

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

mark on the Internet through Google and other popular search engines Respondent WuWeb Pty Ltd registered the 1223inkjets.com domain name on October 19 2004 The disputed domain name resolves to a website featuring a commercial search engine and

office USPTO 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 Respondent

No 791657 November 13 2006 Google Inc v Jennifer Burns NAF Claim No 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

the name ROMI Do a search on google.com and you will see thousands of references to south-east Asians with the name Romi Furthermore ROMI is the first name of Vincent Peeris mother The only reason that Respondent did not pursue the email service

for eure-x.com as provided by Google lists two pages of the website that can be reached at the disputed domain name as containing malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent According to the anti-virus and anti-spy

provided evidence of a Google search for coloplast The results referred only to the Complainant products From this the Complainant claims that it is inconceivable that the Respondent was not aware of it when he registered the disputed domain

2837584 issued May 4 2004 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 Morgan

and the domain names 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