The Panel also notes that the Respondent exhibits a clear pattern of registering and using domain names to prevent legitimate trademark and/or service mark owners from reflecting their marks in corresponding domain names and has been joined as the Respondent to numerous prior UDRP decisions that involved transfer orders: (see: Lange Uhren GmbH v. Ye Li,
WIPO Case No. D2013-1947; Giorgio Armani S.p.A. v. Ye Li,
WIPO Case No. DNL2013-0030; Guccio Gucci S.p.A. v. Zhao Ke / Yeli / Corporate Domains, Inc / Li Ye,
WIPO Case No. ...
2014-10-10 - 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) it may be the case that “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”.
...
2013-04-29 - 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.
...
2013-11-01 - 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.
...
2015-11-09 - Case Details
In support of this contention the Complainant lists domain names owned by the Respondent that include as their dominant feature "Volvo", "Lexus", "Armani", and "Walt Disney".
B. Respondent
The Respondent contends as follows:
i. The Complainant's marks are not well known in Ukraine. ...
2016-07-07 - 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.
...
2017-08-31 - 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
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
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
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
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
D2001-0331, Paragraph 6 (GA Modefine S.A. v Namezero.Com),
it was also ascertained that a domain name which includes a world-wide known
trade mark (Armani) and the word "exchange" is confusingly similar
to the trademark used by the Complainant.
The addition of the gTLD ".com" does not dispel Internet user confusion because
domain name registrants must make use of a gTLD, and ".com" does not in this
case signal that Respondent is distinct from Complainant (see Dr. ...
2002-03-22 - Case Details
StepWeb, WIPO
Case No. D2000-1500; GA Modefine SA v. Armani International Investment,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0305). This is in
particular the case when, as in this matter, the generic word that is added
to the trademark is descriptive of the activity and business of the Complainant.
...
2003-05-20 - Case Details
Al respecto, véanse las
decisiones en los OMPI Casos D2001-0308
ó D2001-0331, relativos a la marca
GIORGIO ARMANI. Véase también OMPI
Caso D2001-0298.
Teniendo todo ello en cuenta debo llegar a la conclusión de que el concepto de "similitud hasta el punto de causar confusión" no puede flexibilizarse, tal y como pide el Demandante, hasta alcanzar expresiones no usadas en el tráfico jurídico por la parte que alega este argumento, y/o que tampoco guardan con aquellas marcas o expresiones usadas un parecido fonético o literal suficiente como para considerar que el público puede llegar a ser confundido en relación con la procedencia u origen del uso del dominio cuestionado. ...
2002-08-13 - Case Details
If the Respondent had challenged the complete lack of support of the claim that CORNELIANI is a well known trademark in Italy, the Panel could have found [cf. Armani Exchange Case (GA Modefine S.A. v. Sparco P/L, Case No. D 2000-0419)], that the Complainant had failed to meet its burden of proof. ...
2000-11-10 - 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.
...
2011-11-14 - Case Details
The brands which belong to L’Oreal include L’Oreal (usually spelled L’Oréal), Garnier, Kérastase, Roger & Gallet, Cacharel, Giorgio Armani, Lancôme, Ralph Lauren, YSL and The Body Shop. It is well known as utilizing the famous Spanish actress Penelope Cruz on many of its posters seen around the world.
...
2012-03-30 - 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.
...
2015-11-16 - Case Details
D2006-1351, where the panel held that the respondent, which had been operating a beauty and medical spa by incorporating the "Armani" mark in its company name, had selected the disputed domain name not by mere coincidence but by an intentional act to attract for commercial gain Internet users to the respondent's website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark). ...
2012-05-30 - Case Details