As the Panel has found that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, in line with other prior UDRP decisions (see Banca Sella s.p.a. v. Mr. Paolo Parente,
WIPO Case No. ...This, in the Panel’s view, justifies a finding that the disputed domain name has been used in bad faith” (see Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. DomainsByProxy.com / Plessers Appliances,
WIPO Case No. ...
2013-02-15 - Case Details
Bad faith has already been established where a domain name is so obviously connected with a well-known trademark that its very use by someone with no connection to the trademark suggests opportunistic bad faith (LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494; Sanofi-aventis v. Nevis Domains LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0303). There is no doubt to this Panel that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name to prevent the Complainant from reflecting its trademark in the disputed domain name and that this type of conduct constitutes evidence of the Respondent’s bad faith (L’oreal v. ...
2012-12-27 - Case Details
Ronald Krupinski, WIPO
Case No. D2002-0642; Harrods Ltd. v. Dijitaldjs, WIPO
Case No. D2001-1163.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has no legitimate interests in the domain name sufficient to
satisfy the purpose of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. ...C. The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith
The Panel concludes that the domain name in dispute was registered and used
in bad faith. ...
2003-09-23 - Case Details
The Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent Complainant from reflecting its mark in the corresponding domain name. ...Its criticism (on the site to which
the domain name resolves) is very clearly directed at the Complainant.
The Panel also noted the comments made by the learned panelist in The Royal
Bank of Scotland Group and National Westminster Bank v. ...
2005-08-22 - Case Details
Furthermore, the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD) “.info” is not an element of distinctiveness that can be taken into consideration when evaluating the identity and similarity of the Complainants’ trademarks and the Domain Name, because the gTLDs are a required element of every domain name (see, e.g., Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...D2005-0517; and Pepsico, Inc. v. Domain Admin,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0435).
Consequently, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered the Domain Name in bad faith.
...
2017-04-05 - Case Details
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. ...See Edmunds.com v. Ultimate Search, Inc., supra.
The Panel finds the Respondent's argument that he has derived no benefit from the monetization of the disputed domain name unpersuasive. ...
2009-07-03 - Case Details
D2010-0138, Pharmacia & Upjohn Company v. Moreonline,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0134: “the mere registration, or earlier registration, does not establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name”, and Amanresorts Limited v. ...That alone amounts to bad faith.”; B&H Foto & Electronics Corp. v. Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc./Jackie Upton,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0841: “finding the disputed domain name was both registered and used in bad faith when the disputed domain name was used in a fraud scheme to send email orders immediately following registration to vendors that would appear to come from complainant, using the names of complainant’s employees and an email domain name differing by only two letters from complainant’s domain name”; OLX, Inc. v. ...
2021-07-07 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that the mark ANADARKO is well-known and that its rights in that mark predate the registration of the Disputed Domain Name . It submits that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its trademark, because the Disputed Domain Name incorporates in its entirety the ANADARKO trademark and that the similarity is not removed by the addition of the word “webmail” (citing Bank of Nova Scotia v. ...It is well established that the top-level designation used as part of a domain name may be disregarded: (see Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2012-11-09 - Case Details
D2005-0758, and Accor v. Lee Dong Youn,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0705).
The disputed domain name features a generic word added to the trademark, which is “pneumatiky”. ...By copying the “Bibendum” or “Michelin man” logo, Respondent uses the domain name in bad faith (La Française des Jeux v. Elliott Stambouli,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0345; Mrs. Agnès Troublé v. ...
2010-01-26 - Case Details
No rights or legitimate interest can accrue to the disputed domain name if its use constitutes trademark infringement. See, The Chase Manhattan Corporation et al. v. ...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. ...
2011-06-30 - Case Details
Id., (citing De Agostini S.p.A. v. Marco Cialone,
WIPO Case No. DTV2002-0005).
In the absence of a response, the Panel accepts as true Complainant’s allegations that Respondent has no authorization to use the SCHICK mark in its domain name and that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.
...Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0003.
Was Respondent aware of Complainant’s trademark and product name before Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name?
...
2013-08-14 - Case Details
Indeed, persons accessing the domain name would be bound to believe that the domain name has a connection with the Complainant.
(v) 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. ...v) There is no doubt that the Respondent knowing of the launch of a new product under the trademark ACOMPLIA by the Complainant, registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent the Complainant from adopting the trademark in a corresponding domain name. ...
2007-09-13 - Case Details
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. ...The Panel notes another case involving the Respondent in respect of the domain name : See GAAH INC., d/b/a Autointel v. Services LLC, Claim Number: FA0702000925297 (April 18, 2007).
5. ...
2007-06-13 - Case Details
Furthermore, the addition of the gTLD “.info” is not usually an element of distinctiveness taken into consideration when evaluating the identity or confusing similarity of a complainant’s trademark and a domain name, because Top-Level Domains are a required element of every domain name (see, e.g., Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...D2005-0517; and Pepsico, Inc. v. Domain Admin,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0435).
Furthermore, with respect to paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy, there is no question that an offer to sell the Domain Name to the Complainants was made. ...
2015-09-09 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is similar to the Complainant’s Trademark and domain name , which were both registered before the disputed domain name.
...Fourthly, this Panel finds that, in the circumstances of this case, the addition of the gTLD “.com” to the disputed domain name does not constitute an element so as to avoid confusing similarity for UDRP purposes (see Volkswagen AG v. ...
2016-02-26 - Case Details
Modern Empire Internet Ltd,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0455; and Belupo d.d. v. WACHEM d.o.o.,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0110).
Respondent has failed to show that she has acquired any trademark rights in respect of the disputed domain name or that the disputed domain name is used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
...Radio Globo SA v. Vanilla Limited,
WIPO Case No. D2006-1557).
In view of the Panel, it is clear that registration of the disputed domain name was an intentional effort to gain Internet traffic from users seeking Complainant's official domain names.
...
2014-05-08 - Case Details
finding confusing similarity between the domain name and the complainant’s MYHOSTING mark, even though the domain name added the word “free”); Philip Morris USA Inc. v. ...D2013-1087 (finding confusing similarity between the domain name and the complainant’s MARLBORO mark, even though the domain name added the “generic descriptive” word “team”); Tommy Bahama Group, Inc. v. ...
2014-01-28 - Case Details
The Respondent’s incorporation of the Complainant’s trademark in full in the disputed domain name and the fact that the website at the disputed domain name is identical to that of the Complainant’s are evidence that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks. ...DCC2012-0001; Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. Liu Ji,
WIPO Case No. D2011-0445.
The Panel concludes that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name, in bad faith.
7. ...
2012-12-19 - Case Details
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. ...See Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Limited v. Dejan Macesic, supra. As discussed above, the Respondent has failed to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and as noted in Research In Motion Limited v. ...
2009-11-16 - Case Details
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. ...UDRP panels have previously held that such use of a domain name does not evidence a respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See Skyscanner Limited v. ...
2020-03-02 - Case Details