D2013-0711 (holding that the addition of descriptive or generic term is not a sufficient basis to remove confusing similarities in a domain); Giorgio Armani S.p.A. Swiss Branch, Mendrisio v. Gabriella Chung,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0821 ("adding purely descriptive words which define the product or service offered via the website serves only to compound similarity when used in conjunction with a mark to which the Complainant has rights.").
...But even if Respondent could show that it was a reseller of authentic goods of Complainant's, that still would not on the facts of this case and in the absence of a proper disclaimer establish that it had rights or legitimate interests. See Giorgio Armani S.p.A. Swiss Branch, Mendrisio v. Gabriella Chung, supra (holding that without a proper disclaimer, even an authorized retailer failing to abide by controls imposed by the trademark owner does not have legitimate interests in to a domain name).
...
2014-12-31 - Case Details
Richard Yaming/Trademark Worx, LL,
WIPO Case No. D2014-1360 () and Giorgio Armani S.p.A and Giorgioa Armani S.p.a. Milan, Swiss Branch Mendrisio v. Richard Yaming, WIPO Case D2011-2233 (). ...
2015-05-26 - Case Details
D2000-1424, a domain name dispute involving the domain name , the panel held that:
“The distinctive part of the Complainant’s trademark, ‘ARMANI’, constitutes the core element of the Domain Name. It is indeed obvious that although the Respondent’s Domain Name is composed out of the word ‘armani’ and the (descriptive) word ‘boutique’, the first of these terms is incontestably the principal part of the Domain Name. ...
2013-03-05 - Case Details
The inversion merely reflects a difference in
usage or placement of the adjectively used noun (Monte-Carlo) in relation to
the principal noun (casino) between the English and French language”.
Moreover, in GA Modefine SA v. Armani International Investment, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0305, the Panel affirmed: “The prior trademarks of
the Complainant in their distinctive part-“Armani”-, are identical
to the domain name “Armaniinternational.net” of the Respondent,
as the adjunction of the trite adjective “international” would not
modify the attractive power of the word “Armani”.
...
2006-03-14 - Case Details
Rahele Mahdavi,
WIPO Case No. DIR2014-0004; and Giorgio Armani S.p.A., Milan, Swiss Branch Mendrisio v. Hessamaldin Varposjty,
WIPO Case No. DIR2014-0001.
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has not authorised the Respondent to use the INTESA SANPAOLO mark, and there is no relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent which would otherwise entitle the Respondent to use the INTESA SANPAOLO mark. ...Registered or Used in Bad Faith
It is generally recognised that the passive holding of a domain name does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith use. As stated in Giorgio Armani S.p.A., Milan, Swiss Branch Mendrisio v. Hessamaldin Varposjty,
WIPO Case No. DIR2014-0001, “[t]he panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the respondent is acting in bad faith. ...
2015-11-17 - Case Details
Rahele Mahdavi,
WIPO Case No. DIR2014-0004; and Giorgio Armani S.p.A., Milan, Swiss Branch Mendrisio v. Hessamaldin Varposjty,
WIPO Case No. DIR2014-0001.
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use the AMUNDI mark, and there is no relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent which would otherwise entitle the Respondent to use the AMUNDI mark. ...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
It is generally recognised that the passive holding of a domain name does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith use. As stated in Giorgio Armani S.p.A., Milan, Swiss Branch Mendrisio v. Hessamaldin Varposjty,
WIPO Case No. DIR2014-0001, “[t]he panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the respondent is acting in bad faith. ...
2019-08-02 - Case Details
Further, the Respondent has a history of bad faith registration and use in WIPO UDRP decisions against him for other domain names, including Giorgio Armani S.p.A. Milan, Swiss Branch Mendrisio 및 Giorgio Armani S.p.A v. Richard Yaming, WIPO사건번호 D2011-2233 () and 삼성전자 주식회사 v. ...
2012-06-26 - Case Details
Richard Tonetti,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0493; 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.
...Abadaba S.A., Administrador de dominios,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0325; and Giorgio Armani S.p.A. v. Daulet Tussunbayev,
WIPO Case No. D2011-2082).
Finally, as referred to by the Complainant, the Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's cease-and-desist letter of June 12, 2017. ...
2017-12-06 - Case Details
D2000-1424 (concerning ), that "…
the Complainant’s trademark … constitutes the core element of the domain name
…" and "… although the Respondent’s domain name is composed of the
word ‘armani’ and the (descriptive) word ‘boutique’, the first of these terms
is incontestably the principal part of the domain name." ...Respondent could not have been unaware of
Complainant’s trademarks, and by knowingly choosing a domain name consisting
of Complainant’s trademark ARMANI followed by the word ‘boutique’, Respondent
intentionally created a situation which is at odds with the legal rights and
obligations of the parties." ...
2004-02-18 - Case Details
D2000-1500 (panelist transferred
domain name, finding that "[i]n particular, consumers looking for information
regarding the ‘Microsoft Home’ or ‘Microsoft Home’ products would assume that
the website address www.microsofthome.com would take them to an official Microsoft
site that provides such information"); GA Modefine SA v. Armani International
Investment, WIPO Case No. D2000-0305
(panelist transferred domain name "armaniinternational" to owner of
ARMANI mark since "the adjunction of the trite adjective ‘international’
would not modify the attractive power of the word ‘Armani’"); Dell Computer
Corp. v. ...
2002-02-25 - Case Details
D2000-0076 ( found confusingly similar to complainant's INFOSPACE trademarks); GA MODEFINE S.A. v. AES OPTICS,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0306 (<armani-sunglasses.com> found confusingly similar to complainant's ARMANI trademarks). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the domain names at issue are confusingly similar to Complainant's UNILEVER trademarks.
...
2009-02-05 - Case Details
The Respondent had also registered several other domain names comprising other widely known fashion retail brands (such as Fossil, Armani, Coach, Bloomingdales, Banana Republic, Tommy Hilfiger, Van Heusen) paired with the same gTLD “.vip”.
...As the Respondent had also registered several other domain names comprising trade marks belonging to other fashion retail brands (such as Fossil, Armani, Coach, Bloomingdales, Banana Republic, Tommy Hilfiger, Van Heusen) paired with the same gTLD “.vip”, there is prima facie evidence that the Respondent is engaged in a pattern of cybersquatting and has registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent the Complainant from reflecting its trade mark in a corresponding domain name.
...
2016-11-08 - 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 is met.
...Abadaba S.A., Administrador de dominios,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0325; and Giorgio Armani S.p.A. v. Daulet Tussunbayev,
WIPO Case No. D2011-2082).
Finally, the Panel finds that the use of a proxy registration service to avoid disclosing the name and contact details of the real owner of the disputed domain name, is also consistent with an inference of bad faith in registering and using the disputed domain name (see Fifth Third Bancorp v. ...
2016-12-21 - Case Details
iv) During its thirty year history Miss Deanna has made, produced and commercialized designer collections from Kenzo, Krizia, Armani, Coveri, Max Mara, Valentino, Montana, Joseph Tricot and others, as well as collections using the Trademarks.
...[This e-mail bears the heading "Subject: Re: GIORGIO ARMANI S.p.A/PARAVA NETWORKS INC. – Domain name "DEANNA.COM". Neither party has explained the relevance of either of these corporations to the Domain Name – Panelist].
...
2004-02-19 - Case Details
Moreover, the Respondent appears to have been involved in several UDRP cases with similar factual background and all cases were decided in favor of the complainants. See, for example, Giorgio Armani S.p.A, Giorgio Armani S.p.A. Milan, Swiss Branch Mendrisio v. Richard Yaming,
WIPO Case No. D2011-2233 for the domain name ; O2 Holdings Limited v. ...
2014-10-09 - Case Details
D2000-1414; and
- The distinctive part of the Complainant’s trademark, “ARMANI”, constitutes the core element of the Domain Name. It is indeed obvious that although the Respondent’s Domain Name is composed out of the word “armani” and the (descriptive) word “boutique”, the first of these terms is incontestably the principal part of the Domain Name. ...
2015-02-02 - Case Details
Whilst the Respondent’s letter was written without prejudice, the Complainant is entitled to rely on this correspondence to establish evidence of bad faith; see, for example, Giorgio Armani S.p.A. v. Yitao/ Apex Laboratories Limited,
WIPO Case No. D2013-2060. The sums requested by the Respondent are far higher than its out-of-pocket expenses and illustrate the Respondent’s desire to sell the disputed domain name for valuable consideration.
...The Respondent’s letter was apparently written intended to be without prejudice but the Panel agrees with the Complainant’s submission that it is permissible for a panel to consider the contents of such a letter in order to determine whether a respondent is acting in bad faith; see Giorgio Armani S.p.A. v. Yitao/ Apex Laboratories Limited (supra).
As the Respondent has not made any suggestion that the domain names were acquired for a legitimate purpose, the only plausible explanation for his registration of the disputed domain name can have been in order to sell it at a profit to the Complainant – which he in fact tried to do. ...
2021-08-12 - Case Details
Li Ye,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0357; GA Modefine S.A., Giorgio Armani S.p.A. v. Germano Armani,
WIPO Case No. D2008-1793; Guccio Gucci S.p.A. v. Bravia Stoli,
WIPO Case No. ...
2013-11-07 - 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.
...Anthony Gorss (or AGCS),
WIPO Case No. D2009-1194; and Giorgio Armani S.p.A. v. Daulet Tussunbayev,
WIPO Case No. D2011-2082).
In light of all the above circumstances, the Panel is satisfied that the third element is met and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
7. ...
2014-05-21 - Case Details
D2000-1414; and
- The distinctive part of the Complainant’s trademark, “ARMANI”, constitutes the core element of the Domain Name. It is indeed obvious that although the Respondent’s Domain Name is composed out of the word “armani” and the (descriptive) word “boutique”, the first of these terms is incontestably the principal part of the Domain Name. ...
2015-02-02 - Case Details