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
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
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
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
Complainant asserts that Respondent’s website claimed that “Dunleath Fashion Ltd is an established and reputable online fashion company supplying iconic American fashion brands and European designer label clothes, shoes, handbags, watches and accessories” and that Respondent’s main collections include “GUCCI, Valentino, Prada, Dolce & Gabbana, Versace, Armani” and many other fashion brands.
Complainant asserts that it instructed its representative to recover the Domain Name and that a letter was addressed, on May 14, 2019, by email, to the shielded email address published in the WhoIs records of Respondent’s domain name and to the email address previously displayed on the website “www.irish.healthcare”, as well as via the Contact Privacy Inc. online form, requesting Respondent to cease any use of the Domain Name and transfer it to Complainant. ...Sometime later the evidence, again undisputed by Respondent, establishes that the Domain Name was redirected to a website located at “www.dunleath-fashion.com”, which continued to sell competing fashion products and claimed that “Dunleath Fashion Ltd is an established and reputable online fashion company supplying iconic American fashion brands and European designer label clothes, shoes, handbags, watches and accessories” and that Respondent’s main collections include “GUCCI, Valentino, Prada, Dolce & Gabbana, Versace, Armani” and many other fashion brands. Here, given that Respondent has used a domain name identical to Complainant’s GUCCI trademark to link to a website purporting to sell various fashion brands is not a bona fide offering of services. ...
2020-07-08 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is composed of the Mark which is immediately followed by the dictionary word
“trade” 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. ...
2023-06-14 - Case Details
Additionally, 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, e.g., 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. ...
2018-05-22 - 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. ...
2019-03-11 - 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. ...
2019-01-08 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have held that respondent acted with opportunistic bad faith in cases in which the disputed domain name appears confusingly similar to complainants’ well-known trademarks (See Giorgio Armani S.p.A. Milan, Swiss Branch Mendrisio v. Min Zhi,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0020; Sanofi v. Whois Agent, Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. / Jim Moretta,
WIPO Case No. ...
2019-07-29 - 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. ...
2020-10-05 - 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. ...
2019-10-28 - 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. ...
2020-06-24 - 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. ...
2020-02-26 - Case Details
Factual Background
The Complainant is a fashion designer. He worked for the fashion houses of Giorgio Armani, Prada, Yves
Saint Laurent, and Ermenegildo Zegna before founding his own ready-to-wear brand “Random Identities” in
2017, which collaborated on a shoe line with Li Ning, a Chinese sportswear brand, from 2019. ...
2024-10-18 - 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.
...
2016-10-11 - 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.
...
2016-01-15 - 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.
...
2016-01-15 - 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. ...
2017-10-30 - Case Details