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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
According to the Complainant, it
can thus be assumed the Respondent has knowledge of English (See Giorgio Armani S.p.A. Milan Swiss
Branch Mendrisio v. Lin jinqing, WIPO Case No. D2012-1412).
The Center has afforded both Parties the chance to comment on the language of the proceeding by sending
both Parties a Language of Proceedings notification, as well as Notification of Complaint and all other
communications in both Ukrainian and English.
...
2024-01-16 - Case Details
此外，投诉人提交的证据显示，除争议域名外，被投诉人还注册了、
、、、、<armani-
exchange.cn>及等包含第三方商标的域名，且该等域名均解析至用于出售相关域
名的网页，该等证据进一步印证被投诉人将他人享有合法权益的名称或者标志注册为自己的域名用于出售，以
获取不正当利益，同时阻止他人以域名的形式在互联网上使用其享有合法权益的名称或者标志。...
2022-07-12 - Case Details
Annexes to the Complaint show Respondent has registered domain names , , , and , incorporating the registered marks for the brands LONGIO (“www.longiowatch.com”), AERO-FLEX (“www.aero-flex.com”), AMCOR (“www.amcor.com”), and ARMANI (“www.armani.com”). In the Panel’s opinion, this list demonstrates that Respondent has clearly engaged in a pattern of registering domain names in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, and that the registration of the disputed domain names was in bad faith under the Policy, paragraph 4(b)(ii). ...
2020-04-07 - Case Details
This point is reinforced by the circumstances where Complainant’s sent Respondent a cease-and-desist letter and Respondent had an opportunity to respond and explain its registration of the Domain Name, but did not do so. See GA Modefine S.A. and Giorgio Armani S.p.A. v. Yoon-Min Yang,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0090, quoting Pomellato S.p.A. v. Richard Tonetti,
WIPO Case No. ...
2018-10-11 - Case Details
Kim Hyungho,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0679 and Giorgio Armani S.p.A. Milan Swiss Branch Mendrisio v. Lin Jinqing,
WIPO Case No. D2012-1412 have held that where a complainant is unable to communicate in the language of the registration agreement, having all documents translated into said language may well represent a significant financial burden for the complainant.
...
2018-09-24 - 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.
...
2018-08-02 - Case Details