The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
...The website associated with the Disputed Domain Name also included what appeared to be an offering of the Disputed Domain Name for sale.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. ...
2013-06-14 - Case Details
In each case, the Panel required that the disputed domain name be transferred to the applicable Complainant. See Publix Asset Management Co. v. Click Cons Ltd., NAF Claim No. 874479 (February 13, 2007); Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. v. ...Prior panels have held that the use of the disputed domain name in each case constitutes bad faith. See Publix Asset Management Co. v. Click Cons Ltd., NAF Claim No. 874479 (February 13, 2007); Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. v. ...
2007-05-18 - 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
Respondent is Eclean, Herdi Kusuma of Jakarta, Indonesia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with UK2 Group Ltd.
3. ...The Center verified that the satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
...
2012-07-19 - Case Details
Alan Truskowski,
WIPO Case No. D2006-1606 (disputed domain name parked with GoDaddy.com does not indicate any right or legitimate interest in the domain name); Eveready Battery Company, Inc. v. ...D2003-1005 (“The panel concludes…that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate internet in the domain name [because] the domain name is not in use as the domain name of an active website [having] been parked for over two years.”); Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. v. ...
2008-06-11 - Case Details
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 (Banca Sella s.p.a. v. Mr. Paolo Parente,
WIPO Case No. ...Indeed, the Respondent asked an amount of USD 100 for the transfer of the disputed domain name and, according to previous UDRP decisions (DHL Operations B.V. v. Karel Salovsky,
WIPO Case No. ...
2013-02-01 - Case Details
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Without more, the registration of a domain name does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests in that domain name (see Gold Medal Travel Group Plc v. ...D2004-0128) and offering to sell a disputed domain name for valuable consideration which exceeds the out-of-pocket costs associated with that domain name (see Central Garden & Pet Company v. ...
2017-07-13 - Case Details
See News Group Newspapers Limited and News
Network Limited v. Momm Amed Ia WIPO Case
No. D2000-1623 (January 18, 2001) (finding to be confusingly
similar to complainants’ mark PAGE 3 and domain name );
Letsbuyit.com v. ...All of these factors demonstrate Respondent’s bad faith in registering the Disputed Domain Name. See The Field Museum of Natural History v John Barry d/b/a Buy This Domain, National Arbitration Forum Case No. ...
2004-10-15 - Case Details
v) Finally, the Complainant contends that the Respondent acted in bad faith because the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name obviously exploits the goodwill of the Mark.
...The addition of generic terms does not serve to distinguish a domain name from registered marks. See Banconsumer Service, Inc. v. Mary Langthorne, Financial Advisor,
WIPO Case No. ...
2013-11-14 - Case Details
In addition, the disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant's trademark in its entirety, which previous panels have considered to be well-known (ACCOR v. ...The disputed domain name is so identical to the well-known trademarks NOVOTEL of the Complainant (ACCOR v. Jose Andres Buenfil Gomez-, supra; Accor S.A. v. ...
2012-09-07 - Case Details
The Respondent is Domain Active Pty. Ltd., Clayfield, Queensland, Australia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Fabulous.com.
3. ...The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules"), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Supplemental Rules").
...
2004-01-09 - Case Details
Furthermore, the Complainant argues that panels have held in cases where the Complainant was a party, that a domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark when the domain name incorporates the mark in its entirety (see Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. ...In addition, the “.com” suffix in the disputed domain name does not affect the determination that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with SWAROVSKI in which the Complainant has trademark rights (see also Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. ...
2014-02-05 - Case Details
Id., (citing De Agostini S.p.A. v. Marco Cialone,
WIPO Case No. DTV2002-0005).
Complainant avers that Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and that Respondent has no license or authorization from Complainant to use the TEMOVATE trademark. ...Respondent's commercial activities undertaken through use of the disputed domain name are not bona fide under the Policy.2 See, e.g. America Online, Inc. v. Xianfeng Fu,
WIPO Case No. ...
2010-06-21 - Case Details
See, among others, i.a., Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0429 (“the specific 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”) and Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B. v. ...D2006-0696; HSBC Finance Corporation v. Clear Blue Sky Inc. and Domain Manager,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0062)”.
In view of the above, the Panel finds that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
7. ...
2010-10-14 - Case Details
Furthermore, it is obvious to the Panel that the Disputed Domain Name, is confusingly similar to the Complainant's Marks. (Sanofi v. Domain King,
WIPO Case No. D2015-1799; Kansai Plascon (PTY) Limited v. ...D2010-0551; Sanofi v. Domain King, supra).
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has not been given any permission to register or use any domain name incorporating the trade name of the Complainant. ...
2018-06-27 - Case Details
It is well established that the top-level designation used as part of a domain name may be disregarded when considering identity or confusing similarity: (see Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...See Match.com, LP v. Bill Zag and NWLAWS.ORG,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0230).
The evidence supports the Complainant's contention that the Respondent registered and has used the Domain Name in bad faith. ...
2015-08-17 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is being used in bad faith, as the Respondent at the time of registering it had knowledge of the Complainant’s rights in the AUTOCAD mark incorporated into that domain name (Lance Armstrong Foundation 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. ...
2016-12-22 - Case Details
See Panavision Int’l, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1326 (9th Cir. 1998) (“A customer who is unsure about a company’s domain name will often guess that the domain name is also the company’s name. . . . ...See, e.g., Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Pieropan, supra (ordering transfer of domain name “marlboroblackmenthol.com”); Philip Morris USA Inc. v. ...
2015-04-23 - Case Details
iv) The Complainant submits that by registering the disputed domain name, the Respondent sought to misleadingly divert consumers for commercial gain.
(v) The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
...Thus, it is close to impossible that the Respondent chose to register the disputed domain name randomly with no knowledge of the Mark. See Barney’s Inc. v. BNY Bulletin Board,
WIPO Case No. ...
2014-09-03 - Case Details
Co. v. R & S Technologies, Inc., NAF Claim No. 96577 (finding that respondent’s commercial use of the domain name to confuse and divert Internet traffic is not a legitimate use of the domain name).
...See, Dr. Karl Albrecht v. Eric Natale NAF Claim No. 95465 (The respondent intentionally registered a domain name that uses the complainant’s name. ...
2011-12-20 - Case Details