D2010-0515 (); Associazione Radio Maria v. Ho Nim,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0607 ();
- The disputed domain name redirects to a parking page that contains several links sponsoring online radios which have no connections with the Complainant;
- The disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s RADIO MARIA trademark with the addition of the letters “fm” at the end which is, pursuant to the Complainant, a negligible difference between the Complainant’s trademarks and the disputed domain name. ...D2008-0477; and Associazione Radio Maria v. Hostmaster Hostmaster, Domain Park Limited, supra).
Regarding the applicable generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) “.org” in the disputed domain name, it is a consensus view that it is usually disregarded under the confusing similarity test (see paragraph 1.2 of the WIPO Overview 2.0).
...
2017-05-04 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark ACCOR.
The disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s company name and trademark ACCOR in its
entirety, which previous panels have considered to be “well-known” or “famous” (Accor v. ...Farouk Systems, Inc. v. LMW, WIPO Case
No. D2009-1658).
The disputed domain name reproduces entirely the trademark ACCOR combined with the word “jobs”. ...
2022-09-28 - Case Details
Furthermore, in the Panel’s view, the use of a proxy registration service to avoid disclosing the name and contact details of the real party 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. ...This, in the Panel’s view, justifies a finding that the disputed domain name has been used in bad faith” (see Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. DomainsByProxy.com / Plessers Appliances,
WIPO Case No. ...
2013-02-20 - Case Details
See Research In Motion Limited v. Dustin Picov, WIPO
Case No. D2001-0492; Chanel, Inc. v. Cologne Zone, WIPO
Case No. D2000-1809 (finding no legitimate interest in use of CHANEL as
part of domain name leading to website selling various types of perfume). ...See Chanel,
Inc. v. Cologne Zone, WIPO Case No. D2000-1809
(finding no legitimate interest in use of CHANEL as part of domain name leading
to website selling various types of perfume).
...
2004-10-22 - Case Details
The addition of generic or descriptive terms does not serve to distinguish a domain name from registered marks. See Banconsumer Service, Inc. v. Mary Langthorne, Financial Advisor,
WIPO Case No. ...See Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
As previously noted, the Respondent offered no reason for selecting the disputed domain name. ...
2014-03-10 - Case Details
Even so, the propriety of a domain name registration may be questioned by comparing it to a trademark registered in any country (see Thaigem Global Marketing Limited v. ...D2008-0495 (“1” is a non-distinctive suffix”); Woot, Inc. v. KA LUN KWOK,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0167 (transferring the domain name ); F. Hoffmann-La Roche v. ...
2013-09-20 - Case Details
Weber-Stephen Products Co. v. Armitage Hardware, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0187. See Report of the WIPO Internet Domain Name Process,
paragraphs 169 and 170. ...See Asia Pacific Breweries Limited v. Chris
Kwan, WIPO Case No. D2003-0920. The Respondent
claims never to have used the domain name, alleging that the domain name has
been parked awaiting a propitious moment for the launching of the aborted venture
capital project for which the Respondent claims to have registered the domain
name in 1999.
...
2006-02-28 - Case Details
The Respondent has engaged in a pattern of registering trademarks as domain names which amounts to bad faith. 11 This can be seen in the following cases:
- Toastmasters International v Bealo Group S.A., NAF 167968 concerning domain name ;
- Target Brands, Inc v. Bealo Group S.A., NAF 128684 concerning domain name ;
- Radisson Hotels v. Bealo Group S.A. d/b/a Promotechnology.com, NAF 214459 concerning domain name .
...
2005-02-03 - Case Details
D2006-0240 where the “deletion of letter ‘s’ in domain name was found not to alter the confusing similarity between the domain name and complainant’s marks SUPERCLUBS BREEZES, in Hershey Foods Corporation and Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery Corporation v. ...D2003-0841 where the “deletion of the letter ‘s’ in domain name confusingly similar to complainant’s domain name” and in Pop Smear, Inc. v. ...
2008-05-27 - Case Details
As decided in other WIPO UDRP cases, “the test of identity or confusing similarity under the Policy is confined to a comparison of the disputed domain name and the trademark alone”. LEGO Juris A/S v. Name Administrator, Hong Kong Domains, LLC., supra. ...Also, the addition of the suffix “.info” is non-distinctive because it is required for the registration of the domain name. Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1525; Rollerblade, Inc. v. ...
2010-05-27 - Case Details
pays domain name owners a share of the advertising revenue
it earns from its hosted domain names. The Respondent submits that its legitimate
interest in the Disputed Domain Name is further supported by its use of the
Disputed Domain Name in connection with the provision of Yahoo advertising links
through and referred to Williams, Babbitt & Weisman,
Inc. v. ...A finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking may be made “if the Complainant
knew or should have known at the time that it filed the Complaint that it could
not prove that the domain name was registered in bad faith, see Futureworld
Consultancy Opty Ltd v. ...
2007-02-26 - Case Details
Furthermore, the disputed domain name does not currently resolve to any active web-site; such "passive holding" of the disputed domain name in itself is not capable of creating any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent therein (see, e.g., Pepperdine University v. BDC Partners, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2006-1003; Archipelago Holdings LLC v. Creative Genius Domain Sales and Robert Aragon d/b/a/ Creative Genius Domain Name Sales,
WIPO Case No. ...
2014-08-19 - Case Details
Furthermore, the disputed domain name does not currently resolve to any active website; such "passive holding" of the disputed domain name in itself is not capable of creating any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent therein (see, e.g., Pepperdine University v. BDC Partners, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2006-1003; Archipelago Holdings LLC v. Creative Genius Domain Sales and Robert Aragon d/b/a/ Creative Genius Domain Name Sales,
WIPO Case No. ...
2015-11-09 - Case Details
This link appears plausible in view of the following:
- The Respondent registered the Domain Name precisely the day after the decision Caterpillar, Inc. v. Roy Weijden, supra involving the domain name was notified to the parties; and
- The domain name and the Domain Name were registered using the same registrar and name servers.
5. ...D2005-0517; and Pepsico, Inc. v. Domain Admin,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0435).
While the above suffices to conclude that the Domain Name has been registered in bad faith, it should be noted that a link seems to exist between this matter and a prior domain name dispute involving the domain name which has been transferred to the Complainant pursuant to the decision in Caterpillar, Inc. v. ...
2016-01-18 - Case Details
It is also well established that the specific top level of a domain name such as “.com”, “.org” or “.net” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar (See Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...Therefore, the present case does differ from those where a respondent is
predominantly offering under a certain domain name goods and services
non-related to that domain name (cf. Philip Morris Incorporated v. Alex Tsypkin,
WIPO Case No. ...
2005-06-27 - Case Details
The addition of generic or descriptive terms does not serve to distinguish a domain name from registered marks. See Banconsumer Service, Inc. v. Mary Langthorne, Financial Advisor,
WIPO Case No. ...Thus, it is highly unlikely that the Respondent chose to register the disputed domain name randomly with no knowledge of the Marks. See Barney's Inc. v. BNY Bulletin Board,
WIPO Case No. ...
2014-08-15 - Case Details
The critical inquiry under the first element of the Policy is whether the mark and domain name, when directly compared, are identical or confusingly similar. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...D2001-0031; EAuto, L.L.C. v. Triple S. Auto Parts d/b/a Kung Fu Yea Enterprises, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0047. Thus, where a respondent registers a domain name consisting of “dictionary” terms because the respondent has a good faith belief that the domain name's value derives from its generic or descriptive qualities, the use of the domain name consistent with such good faith belief may establish a legitimate interest. ...
2009-11-03 - Case Details
The Respondent is Asia Ventures, Inc, Hong Kong, SAR of China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with IARegistry.com, South Carolina, United States of America.
3. ...D2001-0015, Société
Générale and Fimat International Banque v Lebanon Index/La France
DN and Elie Khouri, WIPO Case No. D2002-0760.
B. Does the Respondent Have Rights or Legitimate Interests in the domain name?
...
2003-10-24 - Case Details
T9102674F from March 1991. In any event, the propriety of a domain name registration may be questioned by comparing it to a trademark registered in any country (see Thaigem Global Marketing Limited v. ...It is well established that the top level designation used as part of a domain name should be disregarded: (see Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2012-09-13 - Case Details
Therefore, Respondent is making a direct commercial use of the disputed domain name and not a noncommercial or fair use. See e.g., Pfizer Inc. v. jg a/k/a Josh Green,
WIPO Case No. ...As a further indication of bad faith, Respondent also appears to employ the disputed domain name to disrupt the business of Complainant, the trademark holder. Policy, paragraph 4b(iv); Ticketmaster Corporation v. ...
2012-09-25 - Case Details