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. ...
2019-08-28 - Case Details
Javier Garcia Quintas and Christiandior.net, Case No. 2000-0226 (WIPO, April 3, 2000); GA Modefine SA v. Armani International Investment, Case No. D2000-0305 (WIPO, June 26, 2000), GA Modefine SA v. AES Optics, Case No. ...
2001-01-03 - Case Details
The Complainant is the holder of the house trade marks Luxottica, Vogue, Persol and Sferoflex [see Annexes 35 to 39] and licensee of all the lines under the designers’ trade marks, that are some of the most famous stylists’ and luxury products manufacturers’ trade marks: Giorgio Armani, Emporio Armani, Chanel, Web, Brooks Brothers, Moschino, Salvatore Ferragamo, Bulgari, Anne Klein, Emanuel Ungaro, Byblos, Sergio Tacchini, Genny [see Annexes 10 to 31].
...
2002-11-28 - Case Details
This is consistent with a long established praxis in the luxury and apparel market, where family names are used as trademarks (for example, Armani, Valentino, etc.).
The Complainant maintains that the information provided by the Wayback Machine web archive is accurate. ...
2008-04-21 - Case Details
Richard Tonetti, WIPO Case No. D2000-0493, and Giorgio Armani v. Yoon-Min Yang,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0090) “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”.
...
2008-07-25 - Case Details
Richard Tonetti,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0493, and Giorgio Armani v. Yoon-Min Yang,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0090) “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”.
...
2008-07-11 - Case Details
Richard Tonetti,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0493, 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 is met.
...
2009-06-11 - Case Details
Customer 0130261450 I ICS INC.,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0267; Giorgio Armani S.p.A. Milan, Swiss Branch Mendrisio v. ICS INC. I PrivqcyProtect. org,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0195; Teleperformance v. ...
2013-06-14 - Case Details
LeaseDomains.com,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0711 and Giorgio Armani S.p.A. Swiss Branch, Mendrisio v. Gabriella Chung,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0821).
In light of the above, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. ...
2014-10-29 - 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.
...
2016-06-30 - 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. ...
2017-01-19 - Case Details
This number is likely to increase significantly as the Respondent is also the owner of hundreds of domain names that are identical to, or incorporate, the well-known marks of other companies including: Abercrombie & Fitch, Armani, Amazon.com, Laura Ashley, Banana Republic and Barnes & Noble.
In view of these other registrations, it is clear that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s rights in its NHL trademark when the Domain Name was acquired.
...
2016-04-05 - Case Details
Domains by Proxy, LLC / Kamal Karmakar,
Litige OMPI No. D2016-2497; Giorgio Armani S.p.A. c. Yitao / Apex Laboratories Limited,
Litige OMPI No. D2013-2060.
Pour l’essentiel, le Défendeur confirme son offre de vendre le nom de domaine litigieux, pour le prix d’EUR 10 millions. ...
2017-08-25 - Case Details
D2015-0216; Arla Foods Amba v. Ye Li,
Caso OMPI No. DCO2016-004; y Giorgio Armani S.p.A. v. Ye Li,
Caso OMPI No. DNL2013-0030.
B. Titular
El Titular no contestó la Solicitud.
6. ...
2017-10-25 - 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.
...
2018-01-09 - Case Details
/ Jim Moretta,
WIPO Case No. D2016-0096; Giorgio Armani S.p.A. Milan, Swiss Branch Mendrisio v. Min Zhi, WIPO Case No.
D2013-0020; and Sanofi v. Bo Li, WIPO Case No. ...
2023-07-27 - Case Details
Finally, with regard to the disputed domain name having been registered and being used in bad faith, the
Complainant argues that,
- its MAXWELL HOUSE trademark is internationally well known, with registrations across multiple
jurisdictions and continuous use for over 125 years;
- as the disputed domain name incorporates the MAXWELL HOUSE mark in its entirety, along with the
term “coffees”, which directly relates to Complainant’s business the Respondent must have had
knowledge of the Complainant’s rights and reputation at the time of registration;
- Respondent’s use of the domain name to redirect users to third-party websites, including gambling
sites and unrelated commercial offerings, evidences an intent to mislead and divert internet traffic for
commercial gain;
- Respondent has engaged in a pattern of registering domain names incorporating well-known
trademarks, including domain names related to Armani, Hermes, Michael Kors, Nike, and Viagra and
that all of these registrations are linked to the same email address used by the Respondent in this
case, supporting a finding of serial cybersquatting;
- Respondent’s failure to respond to a cease-and-desist letter sent by the Complainant prior to the filing
of the Complaint has been recognized as a supporting factor in bad faith findings;
- there is no plausible good-faith explanation for the Respondent’s registration and use of a domain
name so obviously connected with Complainant’s well-known brand; this indicates that Respondent
registered and used the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s trademark in mind, in order to
confuse users and capitalize on the Complainant’s goodwill.
...
2025-08-12 - 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 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. ...
2019-06-20 - Case Details
The Polygenix Group Co., Case No. 2000-163 (WIPO, May 1, 2000); GA Modefine SA v. Armani International Investment, Case No. D2000-0305 (WIPO, June 26, 2000), GA Modefine SA v. AES Optics, Case No. ...
2001-02-23 - Case Details
Each of these websites are used by the Respondent as portal gates to direct consumers to other sites, some of them offering Complainant’s as well as other famous brands’ products such as, but not exclusively, Armani, Chanel, Gucci, Calvin Klein or Prada.
On August 31, 2005, Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent and requested him to transfer to it several domain names, including , , and at issue. ...
2006-04-03 - Case Details