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. ...
2018-05-30 - 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. ...
2018-04-27 - 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. ...
2019-01-03 - 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. ...
2019-05-09 - 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. ...
2018-11-15 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is composed of the Mark which is immediately followed by the commonly used
abbreviation “nft” 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
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?...
2023-05-22 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is composed of the INSTAGRAM Mark which is immediately followed by the
META Mark rendering the entire disputed domain name confusingly similar to either Marks. Giorgio Armani
S.p.A Milan Swiss Branch Mendrisio v. Mage Enterprises Inc., WIPO Case No. D2011-1172. A finding of
confusing similarity results whether the analysis (i) begins with the INSTAGRAM Mark and concludes that
the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the INSTAGRAM Mark because the INSTAGRAM Mark is
wholly adopted in the disputed domain name and followed by the META Mark or (ii) begins with the META
Mark and concludes that the disputed domain name is confusing similarly to the META Mark because the
INSTAGRAM Mark is added as a prefix to the META Mark in the disputed domain name.
...
2023-03-20 - 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
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
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
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
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. ...
2019-12-17 - Case Details
D2000-0306 (“[T]rademarks
of Complainant [for “Armani”] are identical to the domain name <armani-sunglasses.com>
… [and] the adjunction of the word ‘sunglasses’ cannot modify
the attractive power of the [trademark]”); Forte (UK) Limited v. ...
2005-07-08 - Case Details
The Respondent stated that the name was part of his “fashion portfolio” as was apparently “.tv domains for Givenchy, Jean Paul Gaultier, Giorgio Armani and Dolce Gabbana”.
Through subsequent email correspondence dated March 23, 2007, to the Complainant’s counsel (a copy of which appears in Annex 3 to the Response), the Respondent stated that in January 2003, he and his colleagues decided to create a “private de-centralized interactive network of streaming media .tv portals in the area of fashion design”, “featuring dedicated e-channels for each portal” and, to his surprise, learned that the was then available for purchase from a third party. ...First, as best understood, the Respondent states that he offered a settlement agreement in good faith to the Complainant’s counsel through which the Respondent, as owner of the domain name , wanted to propose the sale of that name as well as the disputed domain name to the Complainant ostensibly for the latter’s use in forming an e-marketing alliance between the fashion houses of Armani and the Complainant.
Second, the Respondent stated that he never used his web site, resolvable through the disputed domain name, to “exploit any benefit from the claimed association with the Complainant’s mark”.
...
2007-06-26 - 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.
...
2013-05-07 - Case Details
In addition to products sold under the COMBI and Aprica brands, the Panel notes that the website at the disputed domain name appears to offer products e.g. under the Dior, Armani and Ralph Lauren brands. The Panel further notes that the Respondent does not disclose its relationship, or lack thereof, with the Complainant on the disputed website.
...
2013-04-08 - 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.
...
2014-12-12 - 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).
Therefore, the Panel is satisfied that the second element of the Policy is met.
...
2017-08-25 - Case Details
Bad faith is also indicated under the circumstances by the Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complainant’s attempt to settle the matter privately. See Giorgio Armani S.p.A. Milan Swiss Branch Mendrisio v. Lizhen Ye,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0808; Microgaming Software Systems Limited v. ...
2018-04-13 - Case Details