D2007-1325;
- it is likely that Respondent registered the disputed domain name to prevent Complainant from using its trademarks in the disputed domain name. In this sense, the Complainant refers to the following panel decision: L’oreal v. ...VistaPrint Technologies Ltd., supra; Carrefour v. Park KyeongSook, supra; Carrefour v. Yujinhua, supra; Carrefour v. Karin Krueger, supra.
Therefore, in this Panel’s view, it is safe to conclude that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its CARREFOUR and CARREFOUR BANCA trademarks when it registered the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent’s intention was for the disputed domain name to trade on the renown of the Complainant and its trademarks. ...
2017-06-15 - Case Details
John Zuccarini d/b/a Music Wave and the Domain Name RaveClub Berlin,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0440; America Online, Inc. v. Anson Chan,
WIPO Case No. ...This type of parking has consistently supported a finding of bad faith use of the domain name. See Maplin Electronics Limited v. Lee Jeongsoon,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0011; Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu v. ...
2010-11-05 - Case Details
Respondent is VistaPrint Technologies Ltd. of Hamilton, Bermuda, Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Tucows Inc. ...The silence of a respondent may support a finding that it has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. See Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc., v. Lauren Raymond,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0007; Ronson Plc v. ...
2015-06-26 - Case Details
As decided in other 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". See LEGO Juris A/S v. Name Administrator, Hong Kong Domains, LLC.
...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. As held in Koç Holding A.S. v. ...
2015-07-21 - Case Details
D2011-0692; Compagnie Gervais danone v. Jose Gregorio Hernandez Quintero,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1050). Furthermore, regarding the “net” in the disputed domain name, the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix does not affect the likelihood of confusion, merely because it is necessary for the registration of the domain name itself (The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc 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 (Marriott International, Inc. v. ...
2014-07-15 - Case Details
The relevant comparison to be made is with the second-level portion of the domain name only (i.e., “wwwvolkswagen”), as it is well-established that the top-level domain name (i.e., “.com”) should be disregarded for this purpose (see Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. v. ...Because of both the visual similarity and the potential for typo-piracy, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark VOLKSWAGEN (see also Reuters Limited v. ...
2013-01-03 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have established that knowledge of Complainant’s intellectual property rights, including trademarks, at the time of registration of the disputed domain name proves bad faith registration (Alstom v. Domain Investments LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0287; NBC Universal Inc. v. ...Moreover, it is likely that Respondent registered the domain name to prevent Complainant from using its trademark in the disputed domain name. According to former panel, this type of conduct constitutes evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use (L’oreal v. ...
2018-07-10 - Case Details
See, Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. Domain Administrator / Pepito DZZD,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1213 (“The disputed domain name includes a misspelt version of the SWAROVSKI trademark of the Complainant. ...The Respondent has never been known by the disputed 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
Inja Kil, WIPO Case No. D2000-1409;
and America Online, Inc. v. Chris Hoffman, WIPO
Case No. D2001-1184).
The other difference between the contested domain name and the Complainants'
trademark UPS, is the addition of the generic top-level domain (gTLDs) ".com"
to the said domain name, which is completely without legal significance. ...See AltaVista
Company v. Andrew Krotov WIPO Case No.
D2000-1091).
The Panel thus finds that Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...
2004-05-24 - Case Details
The Complainant asserts that WIPO panels had recognized that consumers expect to find a trademark owner on the Internet at a domain name address comprised of the company’s name or mark, citing Michael Crichton v. Alberta Hot Rods,
WIPO Case No. ...Baldrick's Foundation Inc. v. Web Advertising,Corp., supra.
Therefore, the Panel finds it more likely than not that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
...
2011-02-14 - Case Details
A screenshot of the error message shown when accessing the Domain Name as seen on April 24, 2019 has been provided to the Panel.
The Respondent's holding of the Domain Name with no active website is referred to as “passive use” (Philip Morris USA Inc. v. ...The Respondent clearly selected the Domain Name with the intention of taking advantage of the Complainant's reputation by registering a domain name fully containing the Complainant’s trade name with the intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain (Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. ...
2019-06-12 - Case Details
- That the first person to register a generic domain name is considered to have legitimate interest over it (and cites, inter alia, Target Software Solution GmbH v. ...It entirely matches Complainant's trademark CLUB DE SUSCRIPTORES EL TIEMPO (except for the design element, which cannot be incorporated into a domain name). Respondent did not choose a domain name like , which is clearly generic (see Admiral Insurance Services Limited v. ...
2009-05-01 - Case Details
The Domain Name and Registrar
2.1 The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Name.com LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...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. ...
2008-10-06 - Case Details
Several panels in the past accepted evidence that an offer to sell the domain
name may be established through the Whois database. See AT&T Corp. v.
Randy Thompson, WIPO Case No. ...D2001-0300; MatchNet plc. v. MAC Trading, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0205. In the present case, the Respondent’s contact information
in the Whois database (domain for sale etvtelevision@hotmail.com 111.221.444,
domain locations, p.o.box, Nassau Ns 110100, Bahamas, of Bahamas) is an indication
of the Respondent’s intent to sell the domain name. ...
2004-03-23 - Case Details
The Respondent has engaged in similar conduct in respect of the domain name , which conflicts with the Complainant’s registered trademark STARFALL: See Pancil LLC v. ...On its own initiative, the Panel accessed the website using the disputed domain name. (This practice has been adopted by numerous panels: see Corinthians Licenciamentos LTDA v. ...
2007-06-12 - Case Details
Respondent must now show by “concrete evidence” that it has rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Kate Spade, L.L. C. v. Darmstadter Designs,
WIPO Case No. D2001-l384; See Document Technologies Inc. v. ...See VeriSign Inc. v. Bin g Glu / G Design,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0421. At the time the Domain Name was registered, Complainant had already made widespread and substantial use of its LA QUINTA mark since 1969 and its domain name since 1995. ...
2010-11-02 - Case Details
Henry Chan,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0218; Associated Newspapers Limited v. Domain Manager, NAF Claim No. FA 201976 (“evidence of bad faith . . . [where] the domain name provided links to Complainant's competitors and Respondent presumably benefited commercially from the misleading domain name by receiving ‘click-through-fees.”); American University v. ...FA 208629 (bad faith registration and use of a domain name incorporating another's mark with the intent to deceive Internet users in regard to the source or affiliation of the domain name); Luck's Music Library v. ...
2009-08-05 - Case Details
D2004-0246 (geographic identifiers in a domain name “increase the likelihood of confusion between the domain names and the marks”); Six Continents Hotels Inc. v. ...This increases the likelihood of consumer confusion.”); Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. credoNIC.com / DOMAIN FOR SALE,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0987(in ordering transfer of domain name , the panel said: “there is sufficient precedent for finding that the addition of a geographic term or name to a distinctive mark suggests that the domain name is the domain name of Complainant in that particular location”); Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. ...
2012-06-06 - Case Details
The Panel concludes that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith. Complainant’s MARLBORO trademarks are well-known internationally. Because the MARLBORO mark had been widely used since 1883 and registered at the time of the Domain Name registration by Respondent, 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. ...The non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith (Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,
WIPO Case No. ...
2019-01-09 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered SWAROVSKI trademarks because (i) consumers expect to find a trademark owner on the Internet at a domain name address comprised of the company’s name or mark; (ii) Respondent’s use of the Complainant’s trademark causes confusion among Internet users between the disputed domain name and Swarovski approved websites; (iii) the content of a website at a domain name is irrelevant in the finding of confusing similarity and the real test for confusing similarity is whether a comparison between the trademark and the domain name reveals that there is a likelihood of confusion; (iv) the addition of the term “new” as a prefix and of the term “sale” as a suffix does not lessen the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s trademark; and (v) a domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark when the domain name incorporates the mark in its entirety.
...Finally, the addition of the suffix “.com” is non-distinctive because it is required for the registration of the disputed domain name. See RX America, LLC v. Mattew Smith,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0540; and Sanofi-Aventis v. US Online Pharmacies,
WIPO Case No. ...
2014-03-20 - Case Details