UDRP panels held in similar circumstances that such elements are irrelevant in the overall assessment. See, e.g., Giorgio Armani S.p.A. Milan Swiss Branch Mendrisio v. wichan poonsawat,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0845. Complainant’s trademark is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name.
...
2018-07-30 - 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. ...
2019-08-22 - Case Details
Vasiliy Terkin, WIPO
Case No. D2003-0888; GA Modefine S.A. v. Armani International Investment,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0305; and Beiersdorf
AG v. Nivea International, WIPO Case
No. ...
2006-05-10 - Case Details
Modefine SA v. AES Optics, WIPO Case No.
D2000-0306 (<armani-sunglasses.com>).
6.5 Complainant has alleged and Respondent has failed to deny that Respondent
has no legitimate interests in respect of the domain name at issue. ...
2002-05-14 - Case Details
Then, the Respondent underlines that products such as "English Ideas Solution Cosmetics, Armani, Calvin Klein" have been offered by thousands of other online fragrances sellers.
Finally, the Respondent explains the sudden cancellation or interruption of the disputed domain name as described by the Complainant in the following words:
"Complainant harassed sephoravip's hosting company. ...The Respondent's statements that it sells only one kind of cosmetics – namely, "English Ideas Solution" is inconsistent with its further arguments that its front pages promoting different brands (among others: Calvin Klein and Armani). In fact, the Respondent promotes and sells various brands of cosmetics in the same way as the Complainant does. ...
2014-11-26 - Case Details
Finally, in the circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name is further supported by the fact that no response was filed by the Respondent. 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. ...
2020-03-09 - Case Details
Within these domain names, at least 49 included other well known trademarks such as Adidas, Armani, Facebook, Google, Mazda and Mitsubishi.
Since the date of its registration, the disputed domain name resolves to a Pay Per Click ("PPC") website.
...
2015-07-30 - 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.
...
2015-12-28 - 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).
Under these circumstances, and considering article 10.3 of the Regulations, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. ...
2015-11-03 - Case Details
Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC /
Doug Todd, WIPO Case No. D2022-2152, and Giorgio Armani S.p.A. v. lv kefeng, WIPO Case No.
D2011-0740.
The Panel therefore concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s trademark TABLEAU.
...
2022-09-01 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is composed of the FACEBOOK Mark which is immediately followed by the
dictionary word “center” rendering the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the FACEBOOK 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
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?...
2023-05-25 - Case Details
The Complainant ordered shoes offered on the Respondent’ s website and received a delivery from an unknown entity in China containing a pair of sneakers bearing the trademark NIKE and a T-shirt bearing the trademark EMPORIO ARMANI. The Complainant contends that this shows that the Respondent uses the disputed domain name to attract consumers for commercial gain, in respect of goods protected by the Complainant’s trademarks. ...
2017-07-27 - 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. ...
2018-06-01 - 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. ...
2018-05-25 - Case Details
Rahele Mahdavi,
WIPO Case No. DIR2014-0004; and Giorgio Armani S.p.A., Milan, Swiss Branch Mendrisio v. Hessamaldin Varposjty,
WIPO Case No. DIR2014-0001.
The Panel accepts the Complainant has not authorised the Respondent to use the TF1 marks, and that there is no relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent which would otherwise entitle the Respondent to use the TF1 marks as it has. ...
2019-08-29 - Case Details
The website associated with the Domain Name currently features similar links to third parties offering products by Armani, Diesel, Cart, and Hugo Boss. A link at the bottom of the landing page directs the user to a contact screen to “Inquire About This Domain”.
...
2009-07-01 - Case Details
Finally, in the circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name is further supported by the fact that no response was filed by the Respondent. 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. ...
2020-04-23 - Case Details
According to previous UDRP decisions, “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. ...
2020-08-31 - Case Details
Such registration of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s widely-known trademark suggest opportunistic bad faith. See Giorgio Armani S.p.A. Milan, Swiss Branch Mendrisio v. Min Zhi,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0020.
The circumstances of this case, where Respondent has registered a typo of a widely known mark as the disputed domain name, has also been taken into account by prior UDRP panels in finding that a domain name has been registered in bad faith. ...
2020-09-18 - Case Details
Such registration of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s widely-known trademark suggest opportunistic bad faith. See, Giorgio Armani S.p.A. Milan, Swiss Branch Mendrisio v. Min Zhi,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0020; see also, Tata Sons Limited v. ...
2020-09-21 - Case Details