The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is . The Registrar of the domain
name is BulkRegister.com, 10 East Baltimore St., Suite 1500, Baltimore, MD 21202,
USA.
3. ...On August 22, 2002, the Center requested and obtained from BulkRegister.com,
the registrar of the disputed domain name, verification that the domain name
is registered with BulkRegister.com and the Respondent is the registrant for
the domain name.
...
2002-10-18 - Case Details
For example,
in Springsteen v. Burgar [20] the
majority of the panel held that paragraph 4(b)(ii) should be read as referring
to "any corresponding domain name" rather than "a particular
corresponding domain name". ...That interpretation was expressly
disagreed with by the panel in Julie Brown v. Julie Brown Club [21]and
Celine Dion v. Bugar[22], on the
basis that the registration of a trademark as a domain name in the .com gTLD
prevented the trademark owners from securing "the straightforward .com
registration" for their trademarks, which is "a corresponding domain
name". ...
2002-08-22 - Case Details
- That Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name demonstrates Respondent’s lack of a legitimate non commercial interest in, or fair use of, the domain name (and cites Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. ...Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant’s trademark VALIUM is confusingly similar to the domain name . It is entirely incorporated in said domain name. The addition of the words “RX” does not confer a distinctive character to the disputed domain name (see America Online, Inc. v. ...
2008-09-22 - Case Details
Complainant maintains that the disputed domain name infringes its registered trademark rights in V-KOOL and its common law trademark rights in I’M V-KOOL. ...Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name combines Complainant’s V-KOOL trademark and the letters “im”. The use of “im” with Complainant’s V-KOOL trademark as featured in the disputed domain name does not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the V-KOOL trademark to dispel the likelihood of confusion. ...
2012-01-26 - Case Details
Moreover the Respondent has never been commonly known by the disputed domain name and has no legitimate interest in the SWAROVSKI trademark or the name “Swarovski” (Marriott International, Inc. v. ...The Respondent was in the Panel’s view fully aware that the Complainant had established rights in the SWAROVSKI trademark at the time the Respondent registered the disputed domain name. The Panel also notes that the mere registration of the disputed domain name may not of itself confer rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name (Terroni Inc. v. ...
2014-05-01 - Case Details
D2002-0002; and Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha d/b/a Toyota Motor Corporation v. S&S Enterprises Ltd,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0802.
The addition of generic terms like “us” to a trademark, within a domain name, does not add distinctiveness to said name, and does not alter the fact that such domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark (see Bank of America v. ...To carry into effect the similarity analysis, a panel need not take into account the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.com”, because such gTLD is necessary in a domain name. See Ahmanson Land Company v. Vince Curtis,
WIPO Case No. ...
2009-04-03 - Case Details
The use of the Domain Name for an illegal activity such as constructing an email composition containing the Domain Name for deceiving purposes cannot confer rights or legitimate interests on Respondent (L’ Oréal v. ...Because the MINERVA mark had been widely used and registered at the time of the Domain Name registration by Complainant, the Panel finds it more likely than not that Respondent had Complainant’s mark in mind when registering this Domain Name (Tudor Games, Inc. v. ...
2018-11-19 - Case Details
The Panel finds that the Respondent’s <1888vvsupremo.com> domain
name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s V&V SUPREMO mark.
The disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the Complainant’s
V&V SUPREMO mark and the only difference between the disputed domain name
and the Complainant’s V&V SUPREMO mark lies in the addition of the
numbers “1888” before the Complainant’s V&V SUPREMO mark
and the addition of the gTLD after it. ...See
Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Seweryn Nowak, WIPO
Case No. D2003-0022 (“the diversion of the domain names to a pornographic
site is itself certainly consistent with the finding that the Domain Name was
registered and is being used in bad faith”); America Online, Inc. v.
...
2007-02-01 - Case Details
The use of the Domain Name for an illegal activity such as constructing an email composition containing the Domain Name for deceiving purposes cannot confer rights or legitimate interests on Respondent (L’Oréal v. ...Because the MINERVA mark had been widely used and registered at the time of the Domain Name registration by Complainant, the Panel finds it more likely than not that Respondent had Complainant’s mark in mind when registering this Domain Name (Tudor Games, Inc. v. ...
2018-11-19 - Case Details
The Respondent in this administrative proceeding is Lorna Kang, with a postal
mailing address listed as a post office box in Perak, 36009, Malaysia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is . The Registrar of the domain
name is iHoldings.com, Inc. d/b/a DotRegistrar.com ("DotRegistrar.com").
3. ...On November 22, 2002, the Center requested and obtained from DotRegistrar.com,
the registrar of the disputed domain name, verification that the domain name
is registered with DotRegistrar.com and the Respondent is the registrant for
the domain name.
...
2003-01-24 - Case Details
D2005-0694; Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. v. Sookwan Park,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0778). Moreover, the inclusion of the gTLD suffix “.com” does not avoid confusing similarity of the domain name and the trademark (AT&T Corp. v. ...The Respondent has never been known by the disputed domain name and has no legitimate interest in the Complainant’s trademarks or the name (Swarovski (Marriott Int’l, Inc. v. ...
2014-05-13 - Case Details
The Respondent had never been commonly known by the disputed domain name and had not acquired trademark or service mark rights in this domain name prior to the registration of the disputed domain name (Neteller plc v. ...Mere registration of the disputed domain name may not of itself confer rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name (Terroni Inc. v. ...
2013-11-21 - Case Details
The use of the Domain Name for an illegal activity such as constructing an email composition containing the Domain Name for deceiving purposes cannot confer rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent (L' Oréal v. ...The Panel concludes that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith. Because the NESTLÉ mark is so well-known and had been widely used for more than 140 years and registered at the time of the Domain Name registration, the Panel finds it more likely than not that Respondent had Complainant's mark in mind when registering this Domain Name (Société des Produits Nestlé SA v. ...
2018-08-30 - Case Details
D2015-1779). As Respondent is not actively using the domain name, there is no legitimate use that would give rise to a legitimate right or interest in the domain name (see Société Nationale des télécommunications: Tunisie Telecom v. ...Also, it is likely that Respondent registered the disputed domain name to prevent Complainant from using their trademarks in the disputed domain name. This type of conduct may constitute evidence of Respondent’s bad faith (L’Oréal v. ...
2022-03-16 - Case Details
D2006-1374 ; Hilton Group Plc v. Young Nah,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0184, V&S Vin & Sprit v. Young Nah,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0961.
- That a review of the site to which the domain name resolves, will show links to third party pages without any reference to Complainant's Zema Trademarks or the Zema Group companies...D2007-0626 and Sanofi-aventis v. Montanya ILtd.,
WIPO Case No. D2006-1079.
Respondent has not submitted evidence showing that Complainant has granted Respondent any authorization to register the disputed domain name (see Société Air France v. ...
2008-11-18 - Case Details
D2003-0841 where the deletion of the letter ‘s' in domain name confusingly similar to complainant's domain name and trademark HERSHEY'S and in Pop Smear, Inc. v. ...See i.a. Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0429 “the specific top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar”; Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B. v. ...
2008-11-26 - Case Details
The omission of the letter “a” in the “insta” portion of the second Domain Name is disregarded, as it is not readily noticeable (Minerva S.A. v. TT Host,
WIPO Case No. D2016-0384; mytheresa.com GmbH v. ...D2016-0256) and ii) Respondent’s registration of the second Domain Name subsequent to the bad faith registration and use of the first Domain Name, which targeted also Complainant’s marks, thereby indicating the implausibility of any good faith use to which the second Domain Name may be put (Instagram, LLC v. ...
2018-09-24 - Case Details
That the Complainant has been involved in another domain name dispute against the Respondent, concerning the registration of the domain name (and cites SODEXO v. ...D2017-2211).
The addition of the generic Top-Level-Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” to the disputed domain name is a technical requirement of the Domain Name System, and therefore has no legal significance in the present case (see SAP SE v. ...
2020-07-02 - Case Details
Paraphrasing AT&T Corp. v. Global Net 2000, Inc., WIPO
Case No. D2000-1447 (December 23, 2000), this Panel finds
that but for the addition of a dash to the contested domain name, said domain
name would be identical to Complainant's trademark PARAGONGIFTS.COM. ...See Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. Scott A. Smithberger and Quixtar-IBO,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0138 (April 19, 2000)
([b]ecause the domain name incorporates in its entirety this distinctive mark,
the Panel finds that the domain name quixtar-sign-up.com is confusingly similar
to the mark QUIXTAR); GA Modefine S.A. v. ...
2004-04-27 - Case Details
LEGO Juris A/S v. Name Administrator, Hong Kong Domains, LLC.,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0924. On a direct comparison, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s KOÇ trademark in spite of such minor variation. ...The Polygenix Group Co.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0163; Pepsico, Inc. v. Domain Admin,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0435.
In view of the circumstances of the instant case, the Panel finds that Respondent was undoubtedly aware of the existence of Complainant’s KOÇ trademark and Complainant’s trade name when Respondent registered the disputed domain name. ...
2015-07-22 - Case Details