Moreover, to the Complainant's knowledge, the Respondent has never been commonly known by the disputed domain name and has never acquired any trademarks or service rights in it.
Moreover, the Complainant asserts that, by failing to use the disputed domain name in connection with an active website, the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services, and is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name (Philip Morris USA Inc. v. ...D2010-2195; and Terex Corporation v. Williams Sid, Partners Associate,
WIPO Case No. D2014-1742).
(c) The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2017-11-21 - Case Details
It is also well-established that the omission in a domain name of a single letter typically is not sufficient to make the domain name distinguishable in relation to the trademark at issue (See Microsoft Corporation v. ...It is well established that a respondent has a right to register and use a domain name to attract Internet traffic based solely on the appeal of a commonly used descriptive phrase, even where the domain name may coincidentally and unintentionally correspond to the registered mark of a complainant (see National Trust for Historic Preservation v. ...
2010-09-30 - Case Details
The disputed domain name was created on January 23, 2019.
On January 31, 2019, the domain name was pointing to an inaccessible page.
...Privacy Locked LLC/Nat Collicot,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0320; The Gap, Inc. v. Deng Youqian,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0113). It is implausible that Respondent was unaware of Complainant when he registered the disputed domain name.
...
2019-10-18 - Case Details
The Respondent’s registration
of the disputed domain name and use of the domain name causes or is likely to
cause consumer initial interest confusion [1].
...For a typical
US case see Sporty’s Farm L.L.C. v. Sportsman’s Market, Inc., 202 F.3d
489, 497-98 (2d Cir. 2000) (the differences between the trademark "sporty’s"
and the domain name – specifically, an apostrophe in the
trademark and the addition of .com in the domain name – are "inconsequential,"
such that the domain name is "indistinguishable" from and "certainly
‘confusingly similar’ to the protected mark").
3. ...
2001-10-08 - Case Details
The Complainant states that there is no evidence to support an argument that the Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name and that the Complainant has never licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent’s use of its STARBUCKS mark in any domain name, much less the confusingly similar Disputed Domain Name and refers to Suncor Energy Inc. v. ...The Complainant states that numerous factors also indicate that the Respondent registered and used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.
First the Complainant’s use and registration of its STARBUCKS trade mark long predates the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name and refers to Sanofi-Aventis v. ...
2019-10-17 - Case Details
Weber-Stephen Products Co. v. Armitage Hardware,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0187. See Final Report of the WIPO Internet Domain Name Process, paragraphs 169 and 170.
...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. ...
2009-07-02 - Case Details
In many UDRP decisions, it is well established that “Where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusinglysimilar to that mark” (L’Oréal, Lancôme Parfums et Beauté & Cie v. ...Several previous UDRP panels have accepted that the numerical suffix does not have any impact on the overall impression of the domain name dominated by the trademark and have held that the domain name is therefore confusingly similar to the trademark (LEGO Juris A/S v. ...
2021-09-15 - Case Details
The disputed domain name was registered on October 10, 2004. The disputed domain name was registered on September 1, 2004. ...The Panel concurs with previous UDRP decisions holding that registration of a well-known trademark as a domain name is a clear indication of bad faith in itself, even without considering other elements. See Veuve Cliquot Ponsardin, Maison Fondee en 1772 v. ...
2011-04-20 - Case Details
Complainant submits that the aforesaid circumstances together with the lack of rights or legitimate interests of Respondent in the disputed domain name lead to the conclusion that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith (see Produits Berger v. ...Such use is not a bona fide use of the disputed domain name (see, The American Automobile Association, Inc. v. Jack Holder, NAF Claim No. 1227171; Florida Department of Management Services v. ...
2013-03-04 - Case Details
Finally, Complainant contends that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith because (i) Respondent is using the disputed domain name to divert Internet users to a website with links to Complainant's competitors and to take advantage of the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the AMBIANCE ET STYLES trademark, and (ii) Respondent's conduct is a typical behavior demonstrating bad faith registration and use (see OMX, Inc. c/o OfficeMax Incorporated v Domain Administration Limited c/o David Halstead, NAF Case No. ...In Deutsche Telekom AG v. Dong Wang,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0819, the panel held that respondent's use of the domain name for a commercial website with links to competitors of the complainant cannot constitute a bona fide use of the domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. ...
2008-12-02 - Case Details
Also, the addition of the suffix “.com” 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. ...As decided in LEGO Juris A/S v. Lothar Evers,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1711, “[t]he domain name registrants in these cases are presumed to earn revenues from click-throughs to advertisers listed on their websites. ...
2010-05-17 - Case Details
v) The Complainant thus submits that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...D2001-1367; Royal Bank of Canada v. RBC Bank,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0672; and Allianz AG v. Marian Dinu,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0318.
In this case, the Panel finds that the “banca” component of the disputed domain name is descriptive, and that the dominant component of the disputed domain name is “intesasanpaolo”, which is also the corporate name of the Complainant.
...
2015-03-12 - Case Details
An example of such permissible use is, where domain names consisting of dictionary or common words or phrases support posted PPC links genuinely related to the generic meaning of the domain name at issue (see, for instance, Trade Me Limited v. ...Even if such advertising links served up to visitors on the website associated with the disputed domain name are automated, the Respondent remains responsible for such use (see also Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. ...
2017-01-16 - Case Details
The addition of the gTLD “.com” to the disputed domain name constitutes a technical requirement of the
Domain Name System. Thus, it has no legal significance in assessing identity or confusing similarity in the
present case (see CARACOLITO S SAS v. ...The typosquatting conduct of the Respondent amounts to bad faith registration of the disputed domain name
(see Lexar Media, Inc. v. Michael Huang, WIPO Case No. D2004-1039; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2022-08-25 - Case Details
Elena Shaffer,
WIPO Case No. D2015-0810; Sodexo v. Li Li,
WIPO Case No. D2015-1018, among others).
That the term “soddexo” included in the disputed domain name is very similar to the Complainant’s trademark and company name SODEXO.
...D2006-0073.
The addition of the country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) “.co” 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 CARACOLITO S SAS v. ...
2020-07-03 - Case Details
D2000-0610; Media West-GRS, Inc., Media West-MNC Inc., Gannert Pacific Corporation, Gannert Co., Inc., Gannert River States Publishing Corp., Guam Publications and Incorporated v. Moniker Privacy Services/ Forum LLC, supra. The Respondent has not acquired any legitimate rights whatsoever in the domain name or any name corresponding to the disputed domain name. ...The registration of the disputed domain name prevents the Complainant from reflecting its trademarks in a corresponding domain name. The infringing website “www.furla.club” reproduces the FURLA trademarks (Annex 15 to the Complaint) and that such activity constitutes evidence of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name (L’Oréal, Biotherm Lancome Parfums et Beauté & Cle v. ...
2016-02-09 - Case Details
D2007-0645 and Arthur Guiness Son & Co. (Dublin) Limited v. Dejan Macesic,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1698, found that even if Internet users would find out once they have arrived at a website associated with a domain name that it is not the trademark holder’s domain name, this does not detract from the fact that the respondent’s use of the complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain name is what Internet users initially attracted to the disputed domain name in the first place.
...D2011-0972).
In addition, the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) “.com” suffix in the disputed domain name does not affect the determination that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the SWAROVSKI trademarks in which the Complainant has trademark rights (see also Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. ...
2014-02-05 - Case Details
See Moncler S.p.A. v. Bestinfo,
WIPO Case No. D2004-1049 (“the Panel notes that the Respondent’s name is “Bestinfo” and that it can therefore not be “commonly known by the Domain Name.”)
...Therefore, the Domain Name is used for commercial purposes and paragraph 4(c)(iii) is not applicable. See Overstock.com, Inc. v. ...
2018-12-26 - Case Details
Bad faith on the part of the Respondents is to be inferred
from using a hyphen as a device to obtain what is to all intents and purposes
a domain name which is identical to Claimant’s service mark and earlier registered
domain name." SeekAmerica Networks Inc. v. ...Beverages and More, Inc. v. Glenn Sober Mgmt., ICANN Case No.
AF-0092.
6.16 It has also been held that the use of a counter at the web site to which
the domain name resolves without other content is tantamount to an offer to
sell the domain name. ...
2000-05-24 - Case Details
The addition of generic terms does not serve to distinguish a domain name from registered marks. See Banconsumer Service, Inc. v. Mary Langthorne, Financial Advisor,
WIPO Case No. D2001-1367; Royal Bank of Canada v. RBC Bank,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0672; and Allianz AG v. Marian Dinu,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0318.
It is also well-established that the specific generic top level of a domain name such as “.net”, does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark.
...
2013-07-29 - Case Details