Richard Tonetti,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0493; and GA Modefine S.A. and Giorgio Armani S.p.A. v. Yoon-Min Yang,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0090).
Therefore, based on the evidence, the Panel is satisfied that the second element of the Policy is met.
...Anthony Gorss (or AGCS),
WIPO Case No. D2009-1194; and Giorgio Armani S.p.A. v. Daulet Tussunbayev,
WIPO Case No. D2011-2082).
In light of all the above circumstances, the Panel is satisfied that the third element is met and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
7. ...
2014-05-21 - Case Details
Richard Tonetti,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0493 and GA Modefine S.A. and Giorgio Armani v. Yoon-Min Yang,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0090).
Therefore, based on the evidence, the Panel is satisfied that the second element of the Policy is met.
...Abadaba S.A., Administrador de dominios,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0325; and Giorgio Armani S.p.A. v. Daulet Tussunbayev,
WIPO Case No. D2011-2082).
Furthermore, according with the Complainant’s view, the Panel finds that the use of a proxy registration service to avoid disclosing the name and contact details of the real owner of the disputed domain name, is also consistent with an inference of bad faith in registering and using the disputed domain name (see Fifth Third Bancorp v. ...
2016-02-18 - Case Details
Richard Tonetti,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0493; and GA Modefine S.A. and Giorgio Armani S.p.A. v. Yoon-Min Yang,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0090).
Therefore, based on the evidence, the Panel is satisfied that the second element of the Policy is met.
...Anthony Gorss (or AGCS),
WIPO Case No. D2009-1194; and Giorgio Armani S.p.A. v. Daulet Tussunbayev,
WIPO Case No. D2011-2082).
In light of all the above circumstances, the Panel is satisfied that the third element is met and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
7. ...
2017-02-27 - Case Details
Richard Tonetti,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0493; and GA Modefine S.A. and Giorgio Armani S.p.A. v. Yoon-Min Yang,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0090).
Therefore, based on the evidence, the Panel is satisfied that the second element of the Policy is met.
...Abadaba S.A., Administrador de dominios,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0325; and Giorgio Armani S.p.A. v. Daulet Tussunbayev,
WIPO Case No. D2011-2082).
Furthermore, in the Panel’s view, the bad faith of the Respondent in registering and using the disputed domain name can be inferred from the Respondent’s reply to Complainant’ s cease and desist letter (Complaint, annex 12). ...
2013-02-01 - Case Details
Richard Tonetti,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0493; and GA Modefine S.A. and Giorgio Armani S.p.A. v. Yoon-Min Yang,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0090).
Therefore, based on the evidence, the Panel is satisfied that the second element is met.
...Anthony Gorss (or AGCS),
WIPO Case No. D2009-1194; and Giorgio Armani S.p.A. v. Daulet Tussunbayev,
WIPO Case No. D2011-2082).
Finally, according with the Complainant's opinion, also in the Panel's view the Respondent's bad faith is also demonstrated by the fact that, by registering the disputed domain name, the Respondent prevents the Complainant, as the holder of a trademark, from reflecting its mark in a corresponding domain name. ...
2015-02-18 - Case Details
Richard Tonetti,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0493; and GA Modefine S.A. and Giorgio Armani S.p.A. v. Yoon-Min Yang,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0090).
Therefore, based on the evidence, the Panel is satisfied that the second element of the Policy is met.
...Anthony Gorss (or AGCS),
WIPO Case No. D2009-1194; and Giorgio Armani S.p.A. v. Daulet Tussunbayev,
WIPO Case No. D2011-2082).
Finally, the Panel finds that the use of a proxy registration service to avoid disclosing the name and contact details of the underlying owner of the disputed domain name, is also consistent with an inference of bad faith in registering and using the disputed domain name (see Fifth Third Bancorp v. ...
2017-05-19 - Case Details
除了争议域名外，被投诉人目前持有超过6千个其他域名注册，进行域名抢注，包括含有知名品牌的域名，如包含了(a) ARMANI的; (b) CALVIN KLEIN的及 (c) DISNEY的。
被投诉人也曾经是其他“.cn”域名争议案件中的被投诉人。
...鉴于投诉人CPAAUSTRALIA商标在中国已享有高的知名度，专家组认为位于中国的被投诉人，在注册争议域名时不可能不知道投诉人的CPAAUSTRALIA商标。专家组也注意到:
(1) 被投诉人也注册了多个包含其他知名商标的域名，如包含商标ARMANI、CALVIN KLEIN和DISNEY等;
(2) 专家组无法想象被投诉人就使用投诉人CPAAUSTRALIA商标作为其争议域名的一部分的做法有任何合理理由。
此外，争议域名指向的网站显示争议域名可以出售。...
2020-03-04 - Case Details
D2000-1424;
the distinctive part of the Complainant’s trademark “Armani”
constitutes the core element of the domain name, it is indeed obvious that although
the Respondent’s domain name is composed of the word “armani”
and the (descriptive) word “boutique”, the first of these terms
is incontestably the principal part of the domain name. ...
2005-10-31 - Case Details
See, inter alia, WIPO panel decisions GA Modefine SA v. AES Optics (<armani-sunglasses.com>, WIPO Case No. D2000-0306), Volvo Trademark Holding AB v. Peter Lambe (, WIPO Case No. ...The Complainant makes reference to the decision in GA Modefine SA v. AES Optics (<armani-sunglasses.com>, WIPO Case No. D2000-0306) for the principle that bad faith may be presumed in the registration and use of the domain name consisting wholly or partly of the famous trademark of a third party. ...
2004-07-02 - Case Details
D2000-1424 (February 27, 2001) ([t]he distinctive part
of the Complainant's trademark, ARMANI, constitutes the core element of the
Domain Name. It is indeed obvious that although the Respondent's Domain Name
is composed out of the word "Armani" and the (descriptive) word "boutique,"
the first of these terms is incontestably the principal part of the Domain Name).
...
2004-04-27 - Case Details
D2009-0826 (“The disputed domain name incorporates entirely the Complainant’s house marks ARMANI and GIORGIO ARMANI and the generic word ‘designs’. The addition of the generic word ‘designs’ is not sufficient to prevent the risk of confusion between the Complainant’s trademarks and the disputed domain name.”); HarperCollins Publisher Ltd. v. ...
2017-08-18 - Case Details
AES Optics [WIPO
Case No. D2000-0306]
The domain name in issue was <armani-sunglasses.com>. The Panel held
that, in that particular case, the Respondent was quite aware of the notoriety
of the Complainant's ARMANI sunglasses when registering that domain name. ...
2002-02-20 - Case Details
On websites accessed by the disputed domain names, the Respondent offers to sell the Complainant's products and also those of competitors of the Complainant such as "Armani" and "Valentino".
The Complainant caused "cease and desist" letters to be written to the Respondent but these could not be delivered to the Respondent's address as shown in the relevant WhoIs details.
5. ...
2016-07-12 - Case Details
Mani,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0537, where the trademark was ARMANI and the domain name is one that comes squarely within the provisions of the Policy because the respondent was commonly known as A. ...Mani, just as the Respondent in the present case must have been commonly known as Eternal Fleur as there was no other name by which it could have been known. That being so, the learned panelist in Armani was able to say: “This is therefore not a case of the type sometimes encountered, where an opportunistic registrant adopts a name which is intended to give a spurious air of legitimacy to an otherwise questionable registration”. ...
2018-11-07 - Case Details
A number of previous UDRP decisions, including cases specifically involving Complainant’s marks, have found that a hyphen does not distinguish the domain name from a trademark in which a complainant has established rights. See e.g., Giorgio Armani S.p.A. v. lv kefeng,
WIPO Case No. D2011-0740.
The disputed domain name reproduces the term “intimissimi” in its entirety, and combines it with the term “Italy”. ...
2020-04-06 - Case Details
Default too indicates a lack of rights or legitimate interests in the circumstances of this case (see GA Modefine S.A. and Giorgio Armani S.p.A. v. Yoon-Min Yang,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0090).
The Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
...
2021-08-12 - Case Details
D2010-0371 ), a United States District Court case involving Chanel domain names and has registered numerous domain names related to well known trademarks including
; ; <armani-belts.com> and . He is therefore used to cyber squatting and counterfeit activities.
...
2010-12-22 - Case Details
A number of previous UDRP decisions, including cases specifically involving Complainant’s marks, have found that a hyphen does not distinguish the domain name from a trademark in which a complainant has established rights. See e.g., Giorgio Armani S.p.A. v. lv kefeng,
WIPO Case No. D2011-0740.
Therefore the disputed domain name reproduces the term “sheraton” in its entirety, and combines it with the terms “Heathrow” and “hotel”. ...
2012-07-30 - Case Details
page 3
The disputed domain name is composed of the Mark which is immediately followed by the dictionary word
“wireless” rendering the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the Mark. Giorgio Armani S.p.A Milan
Swiss Branch Mendrisio v. Mage Enterprises Inc., WIPO Case No. D2011-1172. A domain name which
wholly incorporates a complainant’s registered mark is sufficient to establish confusingly similarity for the
purposes of the Policy, and as here, the addition to the Mark of a term does not prevent a finding of
confusing similarity. ...
2023-05-23 - Case Details
According to earlier UDRP panels, “non-response is indicative of a lack of interests inconsistent with an attitude of ownership and a belief in the lawfulness of one’s own rights” (see GA Modefine S.A. and Giorgio Armani S.p.A. v. Yoon-Min Yang,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0090; and Pomellato S.p.A. v. Richard Tonetti,
WIPO Case No. ...
2018-03-20 - Case Details