The Panel concludes, therefore, that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. See, e.g., PartyGaming Plc. , PartyGaming IA Limited v. ...The diversion of traffic to third parties and their products demonstrates that Respondent is using the disputed domain name for commercial purposes. See, e.g., The Bear Stearns Companies Inc. v. Darryl Pope,
WIPO Case No. ...
2011-05-19 - Case Details
It submits that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its trademark, because the Disputed Domain Name incorporates in its entirety the SCULPTRA trademark (citing Oki Data Americas, Inc. 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. ...
2009-03-11 - Case Details
See, e.g., Nordstrom, Inc. and NIHC, Inc. v. Inkyu Kim,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0269.
The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. ...D2009-0320; The Gap, Inc. v. Deng Youqian,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0113. It is implausible that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant when he registered the disputed domain name. ...
2016-12-13 - Case Details
Please check back for an update
soon”, which shows that the Respondent has failed to make a legitimate use of the disputed domain name,
which in turn evidences a lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name (citing
LeadsMarket.com LLC v. ...The addition of the gTLD “.com” to the disputed domain name constitutes a technical requirement of the
Domain Name System (“DNS”). Thus, it has no legal significance in assessing identity or confusing similarity
in the present case (see CARACOLITO S SAS v. ...
2025-08-19 - Case Details
iv) The Complainant submits that by its passive holding, the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
(v) The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
...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. ...
2022-02-22 - Case Details
Further the disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of Complainant’s trademark leading to the presumption that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark (See EAuto LLC v. ...iv) Furthermore, the addition of the gTLD “.com” which is required for registration of a domain name, has no distinguishing capacity in the context of the domain name and does not alter the value of the trademark represented in the domain name (Telecom Personal v. namezero.com,
WIPO Case No. ...
2007-09-13 - Case Details
In fact, 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 “.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. ...
2010-06-01 - Case Details
Therefore, the Domain Name is used for commercial purposes and paragraph 4(c)(iii) is not applicable. See Overstock.com, Inc. v. ...D2011-0247 (domain name transferred); Ironfx Global Limited v. Jinsoo Yoon,
WIPO Case No. D2014-2174 (domain name transferred); Educational Testing Service v. ...
2021-01-08 - Case Details
Indeed, the so-called “passive holding” of the domain name made by the Respondent, together with other circumstances listed in the decision Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...D2007-1412 and Mastercard International Incorporated v. Total Card Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1411 mentioned in the Complaint).
Concerning the use of the domain name, the Complainant has proven that the disputed domain name resolves to a webpage showing the message “503 Service Unavailable”.
...
2008-08-28 - Case Details
See, Ansell Healthcare Products Inc. v. Australian Therapeutics Supplies Ply, Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0110 ("The incorporation of a Complainant's well-known trademark in the registered domain name is considered sufficient to find the domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark") and Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. ...The Respondent has never been known by the Domain Name and has no legitimate interest in the SWAROVSKI Marks or the name "Swarovski". See, Marriott Int'l, Inc. v. ...
2012-03-06 - Case Details
D2001-0015; and Societe Generale and Fimat International Banque v. Lebanon Index La France DN and Ehe Khouri,
WIPO Case No. D2002-6760. In these cases, it has been held that the addition of a term, such as, “group”, “parfum”, sports” etc., in the disputed domain name does nothing to distinguish the domain name from the complainant’s trademark.
...The Respondent registered the disputed domain name for the sole purpose of creating confusion and misleading the general public.
In support of its contentions, the Complainant relies on the decisions in the cases of Pharmacia & Upjohn Company v. ...
2013-11-07 - Case Details
See Nicole Kidman v. John Zuccarini, d/b/a Cupcake Party,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1415 (the only difference between the domain name and the trademark is the purposeful misspelling, created by the addition of an “h”); Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. v. ...D2000-1449 (the domain name differs from the mark merely by the addition of the letter “l” in the domain name, and such addition does not prevent the domain name from being considered virtually identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark); Alta Vista Co. v. ...
2008-12-29 - Case Details
The Respondent is Registrant [1429578]: Broadcast Technology of Kiev, Ukraine.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Moniker Online Services, LLC.
3. ...Domain For Sale VMI,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1195 (noting that respondent was a passive holder of the domain name , in that “the domain name does not resolve to a site” and ruling that, “[g]iven that the domain name has been registered since mid-March 2000, it is fair to infer that the Respondent has not made, nor taken any preparatory steps to make, any legitimate use of the domain name”); Netcentives, Inc. v. ...
2009-05-18 - Case Details
This “click-through revenue” is then ordinarily split between the domain name parking service provider and the owner of the domain name (see, for example, Owens Corning v. ...v) It is reasonable to infer from the above that “Belize Domain WHOIS Service” is a name used in relation to the directNIC.com WhoIs privacy service.
...
2009-04-27 - Case Details
D2007-0077, NBC Universal Inc. v. Szk.com).
In addition, as will be discussed below, the Respondent does not make any use of the disputed domain name presently since the disputed domain name is inactive. ...D2009-0242, L'oreal v. Chenxiansheng). All aforementioned circumstances confirm that the disputed domain name is used in bad faith.
...
2017-12-06 - Case Details
In the last six months, Respondent has been involved in numerous domain name disputes. The following decisions, involving Respondent have issued ordering the transfer of the disputed domain name: Artful Holdings LLC v. ...As a result, the registration of the disputed domain name must be considered as a registration in bad faith. See Artful Holdings LLC v. BWI Domain Manager a/k/a Domain Manager, NAF Case No. ...
2009-03-12 - Case Details
iv) The Complainant submits that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
(v) The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
...Besides, the Panel notes that many UDRP panels have held that bad faith use of a domain name by a respondent may result from the fact its good faith use is in no way plausible (see Audi AG v. ...
2021-04-06 - Case Details
Complainant also notes that it has prevailed in many domain name disputes where domain names have incorporated the AMBIEN trademark, including Sanofi-aventis v. ...Similarly, the addition of “.com” at the end of the domain name also does not remove the confusing similarity between Respondent's domain name and Complainant's trademark; United Consumers Club, Inc. v. ...
2008-12-05 - Case Details
The Respondent is Domain Drop S.A., Charleston, Saint Kitts and Nevis.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with DomainDoorman, LLC.
3. ...The Respondent has often been found to be a serial cybersquatter, the Panel in Western Health Advantage, Inc. v. Domain Drop S.A.,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1111, finding that the Respondent “is engaged in a pattern of preclusive and abusive domain name registrations within the meaning of Policy paragraph 4((b)(ii).” ...
2007-10-31 - Case Details
The Complainant has asserted that there is no relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent,
that it has not granted any authorization, license, or consent to the Respondent to use its trademark
ONLYFANS in the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent has not been commonly known by the
disputed domain name (see Beyoncé Knowles v. ...The consensus view among panels appointed under the Policy is that the use of a domain name for illegal
activity, such as the unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted material, cannot confer rights to, or legitimate
interests in a domain name (see section 2.13 of the WIPO Overview 3.0; see also Self-Portrait IP Limited v.
...
2023-05-25 - Case Details