As the Panel noted in Kis v. Anything.com, WIPO
Case No D2000-0770, “The Domain Name at issue here is a three-letter
second-level domain within the popular “.com” top-level domain.
...NAF Case No. 94355, in a case relating to the domain name ,
- the Kis v. Anything.com Ltd., WIPO
Case No. D2000-0770, in a case relating to the domain name ,
- the Trans Continental Records, Inc. v. ...
2004-08-18 - Case Details
D2004-0272; Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Patrick Ory,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0098 (“Respondent has no rights nor legitimate interests in the Domain Name given there exists no relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent that would give rise to any license, permission or authorization by which the Respondent could own or use the Domain Name.”); Sanrio Company Ltd v. ...D2008-0627 (respondent's use of confusingly similar domain name for pay-per-click website deemed bad faith registration and use); Busy Body, Inc. v. Fitness Outlet Inc.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2008-10-14 - Case Details
Respondent is Haya Manami of Nagoya, Japan.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the "Domain Name") is registered with Name.com LLC (the "Registrar").
3. ...D2006-0675; Ford Motor Co. v. Knuhtsen,
WIPO Case No. DBIZ2002-00183.
It is true that the Domain Name resolves to an inactive webpage. ...
2015-08-03 - Case Details
D2000-1525; and EAuto, L.L.C. v. Triple S. Auto Parts d/b/a Kung Fu Yea Enterprises, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0047).
The disputed domain name features the word Mark LE DUFF in its entirety. ...The Panel is therefore convinced that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant when it registered the disputed domain name and the Panel can find no plausible circumstances in which the Respondent could legitimately use the disputed domain name (see also Microsoft Corporation v. ...
2019-11-07 - Case Details
It is well established that the specific top level domain name is not an element of distinctiveness that can be taken into consideration when evaluating the identity and similarity of a complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name (see Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...Previous panels have found that a sophisticated domainer who regularly registers domain names for use as pay-per-click landing pages cannot be “wilfully blind” to whether a particular domain name may violate trademark rights (see Media General Communications, Inc. v. ...
2008-12-09 - Case Details
It has been consistently held that such absence of use implies the absence of a legitimate interest in the Domain Name (Pivotal Corporation v. Discovery Street Trading Co. Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0648; Baccarat SA v. ...Ltd.; and Baccarat SA v. Web Domain Names, supra).
Further, there is no evidence to support a finding that the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name nor is there any evidence that the Respondent has made a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name.
...
2010-07-06 - Case Details
It is well established that the top-level designation used as part of a domain name should typically be disregarded when considering identity or confusing similarity: (see Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...D2000-0163; and Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Samuel Teodorek,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1814).
The Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name is apparently for domain monetization unconnected with any bona fide supply of goods or services by the Respondent. ...
2014-10-10 - Case Details
As the dominant feature of the domain name is the Complainant’s marks CARREFOUR and CARREFOUR PASS, the adjunction of the expression “ssl4” is insufficient to avoid confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademarks (Pandora A/S v. ...Moreover, Panels have come to the conclusion that hyphenation in domain names is “insufficient to distinguish the Respondent’s domain names from the Complainant’s mark because the dominant portion of each domain name is the Complainant’s [trademark]” (Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba dba Toshiba Corporation v. ...
2020-02-24 - Case Details
D2012-1028; Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc./ning ning,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0979.
The addition of the term “official” as a prefix in the disputed domain name does not lessen the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark. ...DCC2012-0001; Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. Liu Ji,
WIPO Case No. D2011-0445.
The Panel therefore concludes that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name, , in bad faith.
7. ...
2012-12-19 - Case Details
v) The Complainant thus submits that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...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. ...
2015-02-05 - Case Details
It is well established that the top-level designation used as part of a domain name should be disregarded when considering identity or confusing similarity: (see Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...D2000-0163; and Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Samuel Teodorek,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1814).
The Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name is apparently for domain monetization unconnected with any bona fide supply of goods or services by the Respondent. ...
2012-07-04 - Case Details
Additionally, the Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name as a gTLD suffix ".com" does nothing to distinguish the disputed domain name from the TINDER trademarks (Prudent Publishing Co., v. ...A mere registration of a domain name does not give the owner a right or a legitimate interest in the domain name itself (Terroni Inc. v. ...
2017-07-12 - Case Details
In light of previous UDRP decisions, the Panel considers that the mere addition of a letter in the domain name, such as “t” in this case, does not alleviate the likelihood of confusion. In fact, the distinctive element of the Respondent's domain name remains Complainant's trademark and both a visual and aural comparison between the trademark and the domain name supports the assertion that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark (Sanofi-aventis v. ...Such an adjunction is due to the current technical requirements of the domain name system. Therefore, this inclusion should not be taken into account when evaluating the identity or similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant's trademark (New York Life Insurance Company v. ...
2009-08-24 - Case Details
The Complainant’s trademark rights have been recognized also by UDRP panels in a number of domain name decisions between 2006 and 2016, for instance, KPMG International v. Manila Industries, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. ...D2013-1043).
Furthermore, the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” in the disputed domain name does not affect the determination that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the KPMG trademark in which the Complainant has rights (see also Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. ...
2017-08-28 - Case Details
UDRP panels have repeatedly held that the specific top level of the domain name such as “.org”, “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar (see Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...D2000-1525, holding that confusing similarity under the Policy is decided upon the inclusion of a trademark in the domain name; and Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0429, finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar).
...
2011-03-08 - Case Details
The "use" of a domain name in bad faith does not necessarily mean use on the Internet: Bayshore Vinyl Compounds Inc. v. ...Dennis Toeppen (WIPO case D2000-0400); Video Networks Limited v. Larry Joe King (WIPO case D2000-0487); Recordati S.P.A. v. Domain Name Clearing Company (WIPO case D2000-0194) and Revlon Consumer Products Corporation v. ...
2001-02-02 - Case Details
The Domain Name incorporates the said trademarks of Complainant in their entirety. This is sufficient to establish confusing similarity (Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...Because the GEA mark had been widely used and registered at the time of the Domain Name registration by Complainant, 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. ...
2019-04-12 - Case Details
Yahoo! Inc. v. Registrant (187640). Most, however, have generally concluded that a transfer of a multi-trademark domain name without a non-party’s authorization could “violate a third party’s right”. ...The decisions also reflect that non-parties suffer
no prejudice when a multi-mark domain name is transferred in a UDRP proceeding.
See, Chevron Corporation v. Young Wook Kim, WIPO
Case No. ...
2007-02-16 - Case Details
Mere amending of one letter to a complainant’s mark does not adequately distinguish a domain name from the mark pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). See Wal -Mart Stores, Inc. v. Gerry Senker,
WIPO Case No. ...D2009-0705; America Online, Inc. v. Anson Chan,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0004.
As well the inclusion of the gTLD suffix “.com” does not avoid confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and trademark. ...
2012-06-19 - Case Details
The Panel finds it most likely that the Respondent selected the disputed domain name with the intention to take advantage of the Complainant’s reputation by registering a domain name fully containing the Complainant’s trademark and trade name with the intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain (e.g.,Carrefour SA v. ...Therefore, this Panel has no doubt that the Respondent positively knew or should have known that the disputed domain name consisted of the Complainant’s trademark when he registered the disputed domain name. Registration of the disputed domain name in awareness of the reputed ACCENTURE mark and in the absence of rights or legitimate interests in this case amounts to registration in bad faith (see, e.g., Banca Mediolanum S.p.A. v. ...
2021-05-19 - Case Details