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 together with the amendment to 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”).
...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. ...
2023-09-05 - 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”).
...Rob Robinson, CBD Industry Domain name owner”. The content of the emails was a negotiation for the purchase of the Disputed Domain Names, as discussed above. ...
2017-12-07 - 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
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 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
The Respondent is neither affiliated with the Complainant in any way nor has been authorized by the
Complainant to use and register the Complainant’s MICHELIN Trademarks, or to seek registration of any
domain name incorporating the MICHELIN Trademarks. Furthermore, the Respondent cannot claim prior
rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names as the MICHELIN Trademarks precede the
registration of the disputed domain names for years. ...The Respondent used the websites to which the disputed domain names resolved, for offering for sale the
disputed domain names and at the price of USD 3,000, and the disputed
domain name at the price of USD 5,000. ...
2022-10-11 - Case Details
The Respondent objects to the registration of trademarks that comprise common words and to the implications of this for the domain name system.
...In this regard, the Panel finds that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to create a likelihood of confusion between that disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark in the manner contemplated by paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
...
2019-06-11 - 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
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 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 Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain name”) is registered with SIDN through Virtual Registrar.
3. ...In this case the parties were apparently not able to formalize the settlement and/or transfer of the Domain Name during the suspension of the proceedings. The Panel notes, however, that the Respondent has unequivocally indicated that it no longer wishes to keep the Domain Name registered in its name (the Panel has ascertained that the Domain Name registration has remained in the Respondent’s name throughout these proceedings). ...
2013-03-04 - 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
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
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
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
Such use of a descriptive or generic word in connection with a well-known trademark is bound to enhance the association of the disputed domain name with the well-known trademark.
...Omar Guerrero / 1&1 Internet, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2012-2307, to be evidence of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name in that case, .
The Panel notes the Complainant's contention that the disputed domain name resolves to the Complainant's legitimate website, thereby enhancing the association between the Complainant and the disputed domain name.
...
2013-04-05 - Case Details
It is also well established that any gTLD, including, as is the case here, the gTLD “.top”, does not generally affect the assessment of a domain name for the purpose of determining identity or confusingly similarity.
...Thus, the consensus view of UDRP panels is that paragraph 4(c) of the Policy shifts the burden of production of evidence to the respondent to come forward with evidence of rights or legitimate interests in a domain name, once the complainant has made a prima facie showing, as the Panel believes the Complainants have made in this case. ...
2017-01-26 - 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”).
...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