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
D2000-0163 (WIPO,
May 1, 2000); GA Modefine SA v. Armani International Investment, Case
No. D2000-0305 (WIPO, June 26, 2000).
Therefore, based on the Complainant’s evidence, bad faith can be inferred from
Respondent’s registration of a domain name consisting of the Complainant’s well-known
trademarks and his passive holding of the domain name.
...
2001-07-13 - Case Details
A failure to respond to such communications also supports a finding of bad faith. See Giorgio Armani S.p.A. Milan Swiss Branch Mendrisio v. Lizhen Ye,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0808.
Therefore, under the circumstances, the failure by the Respondent to respond to the Complainant’s demand letter constitutes further evidence of bad faith.
...
2021-02-01 - Case Details
- Que, además, el Demandado muestra su mala fe al haber registrado también otros nombres de dominio como y , idénticos a las conocidas marcas notorias KARTELL y GIORGIO ARMANI, que también son utilizados para redirigir a páginas Web en las que se encuentran a la venta y que se registraron usando como dato de contacto la misma dirección de correo electrónico del Demandado, aunque indicando nombres distintos al Demandado en la información de WhoIs. ...
2016-01-05 - 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.
...
2015-11-10 - 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". (Dr.
...
2003-03-04 - 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”.
...
2012-07-02 - Case Details
It can thus be assumed that the Respondent has knowledge of English (
WIPO Case No. D2012-1412, Giorgio Armani S.p.A. Milan Swiss Branch Mendrisio v. Lin jinqing). Moreover, today English is the primary language for international relations.
...
2017-12-06 - Case Details
D2007-0987 (concerning the word “members”); Giorgio Armani S.p.A. v. Zhifang Huang,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0987 (concerning the word new); and F. Hoffman-La Roche AG v. ...
2012-10-03 - Case Details
D2001-0537, in which the panel stated (concerning the domain name in which the complainant was the owner of the famous ARMANI mark):
“The Complainant’s case that the Respondent has no legitimate interest rests in essence on suggesting that the Respondent should not have registered a name which is a mixture of his own initials and surname but should instead have registered his own full name or some other variant of it. ...
2008-09-29 - Case Details
While non-response of a respondent may be a basis to infer lack of rights or legitimate interests as observed
in GA Modefine S.A and Giogio Armani S.p.A v. Yoon-Min Yang, WIPO Case No. D2005-0090 and
Pomellato S.p.A v. Richard Tonetti, WIPO Case No. ...
2023-02-17 - Case Details
Respondent’s sites have numerous links to other sites selling goods produced by other famous luxury goods retailers, including Armani, BCBG, Christian Dior, Dolce & Gabbana, Fendi, Prada, DKNY, and Versace as well as Complainant’s RALPH LAUREN and POLO products. ...
2005-12-12 - Case Details
D2000-0306,
which concerned the domain name <armani-sunglasses.com>. In considering
whether the registration and use of the domain name was carried out in bad faith
the Panel stated:
"the Panel considers that bad faith can be presumed in the registration
and use of a domain name consisting wholly or partly of the notorious trademark
of a third party"...
2001-08-15 - Case Details
This would also imply that, had the Respondent started its domain name appropriation campaign at an earlier date, it could have had registered family names as obviously related to trade-marks as Versace, Dior, Armani, Vuitton along with top-level domain (herein TLD) <.com> and still be considered to be making a legitimate use of these names by the mere fact that he doesn’t use them as trade-marks.
...
2001-03-27 - Case Details
Al respecto,
véanse las decisiones en los Casos D2001-0308
ó D2001-0331, relativos a la marca
GIORGIO ARMANI.
Por otra parte, para proceder a la comparación entre los signos distintivos enfrentados no es relevante tener en cuenta la partícula TLD. ...
2001-06-18 - Case Details
AES Optics, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0306 concerned the domain name <armani-sunglasses.com>.
In considering whether the registration and use of the Domain Name had been
carried out in bad faith the Panel stated:
"...bad faith can be presumed in the registration and use of a domain name consisting wholly or partly of the notorious trademark of a third party"...
2002-10-24 - Case Details