Richard Tonetti,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0493; 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 under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is met.
...
2013-02-15 - Case Details
As held in previous UDRP decisions, the inclusion of a hyphen in a disputed domain name does not necessarily distinguish the domain name from a trademark in which the complainant has established rights. See for example Giorgio Armani S.p.A. v. lv kefeng,
WIPO Case No. D2011-0740.
Having the above in mind, it is the opinion of this Panel that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and that the Complainant has proved the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2011-12-07 - 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.
...
2013-01-25 - Case Details
Splurge Limited,
WIPO Case No. DIE2010-0002; Giorgio Armani S.p.A. v. Yitao/ Apex Laboratories Limited,
WIPO Case No. D2013-2060; CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. Gaddoor Saidi,
WIPO Case No. ...
2014-12-31 - 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.
...
2013-12-27 - Case Details
The Complainant notes that several other luxury brands operate their own spas, including Dior,
Armani and Bulgari, making such an association with the Complainant plausible.
The Complainant also notes that the Respondent is not an employee, licensee, or authorised agent of the
Complainant, and that no trademark application or registration for GUCCI could be found in the name of the
Respondent in online trademark databases.
...
2026-09-21 - 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.
...
2015-11-11 - Case Details
D2011-1172 (finding that the inclusion of two trademarks of the complainant in the disputed domain name —ARMANI and AQUA DI GIO—did not distinguish the mark from those trademarks).
The Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. ...
2016-08-09 - 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.
...
2016-06-16 - 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.
...
2017-10-06 - 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 Names.
...
2018-08-03 - Case Details
El nombre de dominio en disputa incluye en su totalidad la marca ZUCARMEX de las Promoventes, con la adición de un guion, el cual no impide la similitud en grado de confusión con la marca de las Promoventes. Ver Giorgio Armani S.p.A. v. lv kefeng,
WIPO Case No. D2011-0740.
Cabe señalar que el sufijo “.com.mx”, es un requisito de carácter técnico y carece de relevancia para el análisis en este caso.
...
2020-11-05 - 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. ...
2020-09-25 - 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).
For all the foregoing reasons, this Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
...
2021-06-15 - Case Details
If the Respondent had been able to establish in this procedure both that ZEGNA is not a famous mark as well as his unawareness of ZEGNA rights (as he had already done in his e-mail), the Panel might have found (cf. Armani Exchange Case No. D2000-0419), that the Complainant had failed to meet its burden of proof. As a result, the Complaint would have been subject to dismissal, since the Panel could have not found it appropriate to make recourse to Paragraph 12 of the Rules (Further statements) given the relevancy and emphasis that is rightly placed upon this particular aspect of the Complainant’s burden of proof.
...
2000-12-21 - Case Details
Richard Tonetti,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0493, and Giorgio Armani, GA Modefine S.A. 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”.
...
2009-06-09 - Case Details
Richard Tonetti,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0493, 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 under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is met.
...
2013-02-20 - Case Details
Richard Tonetti,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0493, 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 under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is met.
...
2011-12-19 - 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.
...
2012-07-26 - Case Details
LeaseDomains.com,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0711 and Giorgio Armani S.pA. Swiss Branch, Mendrisio v. Gabriella Chung,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0821).
In light of the above, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. ...
2014-10-16 - Case Details