The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
...The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. As at the time of filing the Complaint and amended Complaint, the disputed domain names resolved to inactive webpages. ...
2021-06-14 - Case Details
Then, the Panel notices that the Disputed Domain Names are composed of the identical reproduction of the
well-known CIC Trademarks in its entirety, to which has been added the terms:
(i) “1fr” separated by a hyphen for the first Disputed Domain Name;
(ii) “www” separated by a hyphen for the second Disputed Domain Name; and
(iii) the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”.
...Furthermore, the gTLD “.com” is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded
for the purpose of determining whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark.
...
2023-08-03 - Case Details
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
...It is well established that a domain name that wholly incorporates a trademark generally may be confusingly similar to such trademark for purposes of the Policy despite the addition of other terms (Guccio Gucci S.p.A. v. ...
2020-06-29 - Case Details
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules"), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Supplemental Rules").
...The Panel finds that in registering the domain names, the Respondent intended to attract Internet users for profit. The Respondent now appears to be using the disputed domain names to attract Internet users who may be looking for a hotel to its website, so as to profit from such visits, as well as from the management of the reservations for hotels other than the RIU chain. ...
2007-03-19 - Case Details
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
...The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
That the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant's mark at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name and that it nevertheless registered the disputed domain name for commercial gain, is clear evidence that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. ...
2010-07-08 - Case Details
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
...The argument by the Respondent stating that the design of the web sites linked to the disputed domain names compared to the design of the Complainant’s marketplace operated under the domain name are different, is not convincing. ...
2011-01-20 - Case Details
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
...The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on August 21, 2002. In its Response, the Respondent has expressly consented to the transfer of the domain name in question.
5. ...
2011-01-18 - Case Details
The Respondent has not presented evidence that the Respondent used or made preparations to use the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, that the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name or that the Respondent is making a noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, or in any other way refuted the Complainant’s prima facie case. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established this element of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy states that the following circumstances are evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) the respondent registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its web site or location or of a product or service on its web site or location.
...
2013-09-26 - Case Details
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
...D2005-1132 to support the position that a panel may authorize the voluntary transfer of a disputed domain name, without the necessity of reviewing the facts and arguments, or making any finding on the merits of the matter under the Policy.
...
2009-05-29 - Case Details
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy" or "UDRP"), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules"), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Supplemental Rules").
...However, Respondent sent numerous emails to the Center indicating its alleged willingness to transfer the disputed domain names to Complainant.
6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to divest a respondent of a domain name, a complainant must demonstrate each of the following:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which complainant has rights; and
(ii) respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2017-05-10 - Case Details
The domain name "connexionbyboeing.com" fully incorporates complainant’s valuable and famous trademark and trade name boeing and is confusingly similar to that mark and name.
...Respondent
The Respondent has not participated in this proceeding and no material authored by it has been made available to the Administrative Panel.
8. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove that:
a) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a service mark to which the Complainant has rights;
b) the Respondent has no legitimate interest in respect of the domain name;
c) the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.
...
2000-10-26 - Case Details
On this point, the Complainant principally asserts that the Respondent is not making a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, nor is it using the disputed domain name to make a
bona fide offer of goods or services. ...Such a showing is sufficient here to establish bad faith
registration of the disputed domain name. Bad faith use is clear from the Respondent’s activities of using the
disputed domain name to send a fraudulent email messages. ...
2023-05-08 - Case Details
The Respondent is Tulip Trading Company of Charlestown, Saint Kitts and Nevis.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Key-Systems GmbH dba domaindiscount24.com (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on March 18, 2016. The disputed domain name resolves to a website containing pay-per-click (“PPC”) links to third-party websites, some of which offer competing products to those of the Complainant.
5. ...
2017-02-06 - Case Details
On July 12, 2002, the Registrar provided the Center with the full contact details available in its WHOIS database for the Domain Names registrant and further confirmed that:
- a copy of the Complaint was sent to it by the Complainant;
- it is the current Registrar of the Domain Names registration;
- the Respondent is the current registrant of the Domain Names registration;
- the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (hereinafter referred to as the ICANN Policy) applies to the Domain Names;
- the languages of the Registration Agreement are English and German;
- the jurisdiction at the location of the principal office of the Registrar for court adjudication of disputes concerning or arising from the use of the domain names (Rules, Paragraph 1);
Complainant then communicated to the Center that it had received the notification stating that its e-mail transmission of the Complaint to the Respondent was not delivered because the recipient's name was not recognized. ...The Center proceeded to verify that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (hereinafter referred to as the "ICANN Rules") and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (hereinafter referred to as the "WIPO Supplemental Rules"), including the payment of the requisite fees. ...
2002-09-13 - Case Details
As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or
legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with
relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. ...Further
factors including the nature of the domain name, the chosen top-level domain, any use of the domain name,
or any respondent pattern, may obviate a respondent’s claim not to have been aware of the
complainant’s mark.”
...
2025-01-13 - Case Details
It has no consent from the Complainant to register any domain
name incorporating the Complainant’s trademark, it has not used the disputed domain names for a bona fide
offering of goods or services, and the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor
is it making noncommercial fair use of the disputed domain name.
...Given the reputation or the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s mark, the composition of the disputed
domain name, the Respondent’s lack of participation in this proceeding, the lack of any credible good faith
use to which the confusingly similar disputed domain name could be put, and the Respondent’s use of
privacy service, the totality of circumstances surrounding the non-use of the disputed domain name does not
prevent a finding of bad faith. ...
2025-09-24 - Case Details
Through its trademark attorney, Complainant sent a formal letter on October 24, 2001 asking Respondent to cease and desist from any unauthorized use of the domain names at issue and of the domain name , a domain name which was then registered in the name of Respondent but no longer is; Complainant also requested Respondent to cancel the said domain names.
...The same will be said
in relation with the dash between Air and France in the domain name at issue.
Finally, it is of no relevance that the domain names at issue do not use capital letters for Air and for France, as Internet users are used to the complete disregard of the ordinary rules for capitalization.
...
2002-08-02 - Case Details
Complainant was recently selected by "PC Magazine" as one of the top 100 companies in the PC industry.
On or about May 1998, Respondent registered the domain name "phoenixtechnologies.com" with Network Solutions, Inc. ...Counsel indicated that Respondent "is not opposed to and believes that it is appropriate to transfer the domain name [in dispute] to the Complainant pursuant to paragraph 3 of the Policy."
3. Conclusions
In view of Respondent’s "Statement of Non-Opposition" to transfer of the domain name, the Panel orders that the contested domain name be transferred to Complainant, consistent with the provisions of paragraph 8 of the Policy.
...
2000-06-20 - Case Details
Respondent has not contested the complainant’s allegations.
6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the complainant must prove each of the following:
(1) that the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and,
(2) that the respondent has no legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and,
(3) the domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.
...Respondent also has not denied complainant’s allegation of bad faith registration and use.
In the Commencement Notification, respondent was informed that Paragraph 14 of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy provides that the Panel "may draw such inferences from your default as it considers appropriate."
...
2000-09-09 - Case Details
In some
instances, however, panels have taken note of the content of the website associated with a domain name to
confirm confusing similarity whereby it appears prima facie that the respondent seeks to target a trademark
through the disputed domain name. ...Bad faith in the circumstances of this case is also confirmed from the Respondent’s use of
a privacy service to register the disputed domain name.
...
2023-03-16 - Case Details