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.
...
2014-03-07 - Case Details
This website features designer sunglasses with well-known brands such as ARMANI, OAKLEY, and RAYBAN, for purchase at heavily discounted prices through the website. The featured sunglasses do not include any carrying the Complainant’s SPY mark. ...
2013-11-13 - 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).
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. ...
2014-08-19 - Case Details
He has also entered into endorsement agreements under the name CALVIN HARRIS with global brands such as Coca-Cola and Emporio Armani.
All up, the Complainant has sold approximately 6,000,000 albums under the name CALVIN HARRIS. Total revenues from live performance, record music sales, advertising, sponsorships and endorsements under the name CALVIN HARRIS exceed USD 200,000,000.
...
2015-10-14 - 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.
...
2016-04-27 - Case Details
According to earlier 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. ...
2016-05-20 - Case Details
PrivacyProtect.org / Aditya Roshni, Web Services Pty,
WIPO Case No. D2014-0058; Giorgio Armani S.p.A Milan, Swiss Branch Mendrisio v. Min Zhi,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0020.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name . ...
2016-02-26 - 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.
...
2016-02-08 - 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, the Panel is satisfied that the second element of the Policy is met.
...
2016-01-26 - Case Details
Richard Tonetti,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0493; 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.
...
2017-12-21 - Case Details
D2000-0493 (“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”) and GA Modefine S.A. and Giorgio Armani S.p.A. v. Yoon-Min Yang,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0090.
The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
...
2018-01-16 - Case Details
Such registration of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s widely-known trademark
suggests 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 disputed domain name that includes the
entirety of Complainant’s MONTAGE Mark with an intentional one-letter misspelling of Complainant’s widely-
known MONTAGE Mark and official domain name, the disputed domain name constitutes
typosquatting, which conduct has been taken into account by prior UDRP panels in finding that a domain
name has been registered in bad faith. ...
2022-12-06 - Case Details
The disputed domain
name is composed of the KODAK Mark which is immediately followed by the ALARIS 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 KODAK Mark and concludes that the disputed domain name is
confusingly similar to the KODAK Mark because the KODAK Mark is wholly adopted in the disputed domain
name and only followed by the ALARIS Mark and the term “limited” or (ii) begins with the ALARIS Mark and
concludes that the disputed domain is confusing similarly to the ALARIS Mark because the KODAK Mark is
added as a prefix to the ALARIS Mark in the disputed domain name and the term “limited” is used as a suffix.
...
2023-03-20 - 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.
...
2020-11-03 - 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.
...
2021-01-07 - 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.
...
2020-07-08 - 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.
...
2020-07-21 - 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. ...
2020-03-31 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have held that a respondent acted with opportunistic bad faith in cases in which a domain name appears confusingly similar to a complainant’s well-known trademarks (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. ...
2019-08-01 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have held that respondents acted with opportunistic bad faith in cases in which the disputed domain name appears confusingly similar to complainant’s well-known trademarks (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. ...
2019-08-01 - Case Details