Martens International Trading GmbH, Dr.
Maertens Marketing GmbH v. Private Whois Service, supra; FXCM Global Services, LLC v. Ai Lin, supra).
That the Respondent has listed the disputed domain name for sale for a price which clearly exceeds the
Respondent’s investment in the disputed domain name, and that this constitutes bad faith registration and
use of the disputed domain name (and cites AT&T Corp v. rnetworld, WIPO Case No. ...case=D2008-0598
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Ecolab USA Inc. v. Domain Privacy, Domain Name Privacy Inc
Case No. D2025-1628
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. ...
2025-06-19 - Case Details
D2000-1483). Moreover as the website under the disputed domain name is inactive and the fact that the disputed domain name is held passively does not prejudge a legitimate use of that domain is deemed a bad faith indicator (Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. v. ...The adjunction of the gTLD "online" in the disputed domain name is typically ignored (see Siemens AG v Gokhan Yagci,
WIPO Case No. D2015-1690).
The Panel concludes that disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's trademarks and therefore the condition of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is fulfilled.
...
2016-03-15 - Case Details
On the contrary, it merely suggests to Internet users that the disputed domain name offers for sale the Complainant’s products (Oki Data Americas Inc v. ASD Inc.,
WIPO Case No. ...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. ...
2014-02-26 - Case Details
Respondent is Martins Ogemdi of Imo, Nigeria.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The Domain Name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Also, the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” to the Domain Name typically does not avoid confusing similarity. See F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. ...
2015-03-16 - Case Details
As the dominant feature of the disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s mark MICHELIN, the adjunction of the letters “wine” is insufficient to avoid confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark (Pandora A/S v. ...Thirdly, the Complainant’s MICHELIN trademark registrations significantly predate the registration date of the disputed domain name. In this regard, previous panels have established that knowledge of the Complainant’s intellectual property rights, including trademarks, at the time of registration of the disputed domain name proves bad faith registration (Alstom v. ...
2021-04-12 - Case Details
D2005-0015), the Disputed Domain Name was registered in a deliberate attempt to confuse consumers by typo-squatting (citing Wachovia Corporation 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. ...
2011-02-24 - Case Details
The Respondent is EzDomainSearch.com, Juan Curtis of San Diego, California, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc. ...In Exario Network Inc. v. THE DOMAIN NAME YOU HAVE ENTERED IS FOR SALE, eResolution Case No. AF-0536, the panel recognized: “It is well established that a complainant need not own a registered trademark to invoke the policy. ...
2011-12-21 - Case Details
A.3 Bad faith registration and use
Complainants state:
That Respondent has registered the contested domain name
primarily for the purpose of selling or transferring the domain name to the
Complainants or to a competitor for a valuable consideration in excess of documented
out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; that the said domain
name is offered for sale for $ 300 through an escrow company service (and cites
Carolina Herrera, Ltd v. ...See also Toronto Convention & Visitors Association v. This Domain is
For Sale /Email Your Offers, WIPO Case
No. D2001-1463, February 25, 2002: transfer to and acquisition
by a Respondent of a domain name in bad faith can be treated as equivalent to
registration of the domain name in bad faith; and Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a
Madonna v. ...
2003-06-23 - Case Details
Once the generic “.name” top level domain removed, the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade marks (Banca di Roma S.p.A. v. unasi Inc. a/k/a Domaincar,
WIPO Case No. ...The Respondent may not therefore claim ignorance of the existence of the trademarks at the time of the domain name registration on June 19, 2006. The above circumstances therefore suggest the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith (Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A v. ...
2009-06-22 - Case Details
Furthermore the inclusion of the gTLD suffix “.com” does not avoid confusing similarity between the domain name and the trademark (AT&T Corp. v. William Gormally,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0758; Accor v. Lee Dong Youn,
WIPO Case No. ...Mere registration of the disputed domain name may not of itself confer rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name (Terroni Inc. v. ...
2013-12-06 - Case Details
The use of the Domain Name for an illegal activity such as constructing an e-mail composition containing the Domain Name for deceiving purposes cannot confer rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent (L’ Oréal v. ...As Complainant demonstrated, Respondent used the Domain Name, on the same day as the day it was registered, to create an e-mail address and send a fraudulent e-mail to one of Complainant’ s employees (Arla Foods Amba v. ...
2018-05-30 - Case Details
V. Krpanu, WIPO Case
No. D2000-0948.
Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. ...D2000-0638. Registration of an ordinary word as a domain name and
use of that domain name for that ordinary, non-trademark significance, can be
a legitimate interest Thrifty, Inc. and Thrifty Rent-A-Car System, Inc. v.
...
2003-03-20 - Case Details
The addition of a generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.net” to the Disputed Domain Name does not avoid confusing similarity.
As found, inter alia, in Telecom Personal, S.A., v. ...This amount is well in excess of the out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Disputed Domain Name, as evidenced in several cases, such as Benetton Group SpA v. Domain for Sale,
WIPO Case No. ...
2009-08-26 - Case Details
D2001-0313, and RRI Financial, Inc. v. Ray Chen, WIPO
Case No. D2001-1242. Furthermore, a registrant may not avoid confusion by
appropriating another’s entire mark in a domain name and adding a generic
or non-distinctive term in a domain name, according to the principle confirmed
in Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. ...Finally, it is a well-established principle that the inactivity of a domain
name can support a claim of bad faith (Telstra Corp. v. Nuclear Marshmallows,
supra; Yahoo! Inc. v. ...
2005-10-26 - Case Details
The Respondent is Andrey Serkov, Company Name Domain Names Sale Lease Individual, Leningradskaya oblast, Russian Federation.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. ...The Panel relies on this statement as further support for its conclusion that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. (See also Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin, Maison Fondée en 1772 v. ...
2011-11-11 - Case Details
Arb. Forum 2001); see also Ode v. Intership Ltd., D2001-0074
(WIPO May 1, 2001) (under ICANN rules, a trademark must predate the domain name.)
...Respondent has the right to register
the subject domain name, comingattractions.com based upon the generic usage
of the term ‘coming attractions.’ Coming Attractions, Ltd. v. ...
2001-10-11 - Case Details
See, e.g., Chanel,
Inc. v. Buybeauty.com, WIPO Case No. D2000-1126
(failure to use domain name supports finding of no legitimate interest) (citing
Mary-Lynne Mondich v. ...CHF Industries, Inc. v. Domain Deluxe,
FA 97532 (Nat Arb. Forum July 26, 2001)(“Respondent intends to use the
domain name in connection with a legitimate business. ...
2007-04-19 - Case Details
Hector Rodriguez,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1016 and Bayer Aktiengesellschaft v. Yongho Ko,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0205.
The domain name points to a website consisting of a page displaying sponsored links which are generating revenues via the pay per click system also for the present domain name holder. ...See Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1525.
In the present case, the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark COFFEE-MATE. ...
2008-03-18 - Case Details
The number of third party domain name registrations comprising the trade mark LEGO in combination with other words has skyrocketed the last years (as an indication, please see e.g., Lego Juris A/S v. ...Consequently, the Panel draws the conclusion that Respondent knew of Complainant, its products and its trademarks prior to and after the registration of the Domain Name and has been using the Domain Name in bad faith.
Furthermore, previous UDRP panels have determined that incorporating a widely-known trademark, such as the Complainant’s LEGO Trademark as a domain name is a clear indication of bad faith (CaixaD´Estalvis I Pensions de Barcelona (“La Caixa”) v. ...
2013-02-22 - Case Details
Moreover, this Panel emphasizes that the case at hand is a typical case of “typosquatting”, which occurs when one letter is replaced by another or added in a domain name. According to the consensus view of UDRP panels, a domain name which contains a common or obvious misspelling of a trademark normally is found to be confusingly similar to such trademark, where the misspelled trademark remains the dominant or principal component of the domain name (see Wachovia Corporation v. ...D2015-0769; Carrefour v. Park KyeongSook,
WIPO Case No. D2014-1425; Carrefour v. Yunjinhua,
WIPO Case No. D2014-0257). In addition, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name entirely contains the Complainant’s trademark and redirects to the Complainant’s Italian website.
...
2020-03-12 - Case Details