See Rollerblade, Inc. v. 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”;
Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B. v. ...Whois ID Theft Protection
c/o Domain Admin, NAF Case No.726075 (transfer of the domain name
to the Complainant) and Wind-lock Corporation v. ...
2007-02-09 - Case Details
D2008-1613; Florida Department of Management Services v. Anthony Gorss (or AGCS),
WIPO Case No. D2009-1194). In determining whether a domain name and a trademark are identical or confusingly similar, the gTLD suffix shall be disregarded (DHL Operations B.V. v. ...Moreover the Complainant argues that it has a substantial presence on the Internet, a fact that can easily be assessed by entering "bwin" or "4bwin" in a search engine and that it is the duty of a domain name owner to assess, if he is violating trademark rights with the registration of the desired domain name before the registration (Kate Spade, LLC v. ...
2011-08-19 - Case Details
Privacy Locked LLC/Nat Collicot
WIPO Case No. D2009-0320; The Gap, Inc. v. Deng Youqian
WIPO Case No. D2009-0113). It is implausible that Respondent was unaware of Complainant when he registered the disputed domain name.
...Finally, it is likely that Respondent registered the domain name to prevent Complainant from using their trademarks in the disputed domain name. According to former panel, this type of conduct constitutes evidence of Respondent’s bad faith (L’oreal v. ...
2019-11-28 - 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 WORLDPAY trademark and that the similarity is not removed by the addition of an abbreviation for the descriptive word “e-commerce”, namely “ecom” (citing Chanel, Inc v. ...Trademark Registration No. 24114305 from August 26, 1997, which predates registration of the disputed domain name by some 15 years. Even so, the propriety of a domain name registration may be questioned by comparing it to a trademark registered in any country (see Thaigem Global Marketing Limited v. ...
2014-02-28 - Case Details
Abdallah Sheet, NAF Claim No. 165119 (“addition of the top level domain “.com” is irrelevant in determining whether a domain name is identical to a mark”); Philip Morris USA Inc. v. ...These facts are enough to demonstrate, prima facie, the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See CIMB Group Sdn. Bhd. & CIMB-Principal Asset Management Berhad v. PrivacyProtect.org / Cyber Domain Services Pvt. ...
2013-11-05 - Case Details
Furthermore, the Panel also agrees with the finding of previous UDRP panels that the use of a mark in its entirety together with a geographic term in a domain name creates a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark. See e.g., Playboy Enterprises International Inc. v. Joao Melancia,
WIPO Case No. D2006-1106; AT&T Corp. v. WorldclassMedia.com,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0553; Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. CredoNic.com / Domain Name for Sale,
WIPO Case No. ...
2020-02-19 - Case Details
Where a respondent knew or should have known of a trademark prior to registering a domain name containing this mark, such conduct may also suggest bad faith. See Weetabix Limited v. Mr. J. ...In addition, the Panel notes that many UDRP decisions have held that bad faith use of a domain name by a respondent may also result from the fact that its good faith use is in no way plausible (see Audi AG v. ...
2016-12-29 - Case Details
Furthermore, based on an assessment of the evidence on record, the Panel finds there is no indication that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name or that it has used the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services: Malayan Banking Berhad v. ...As a preliminary matter, Respondent’s acquisition of the subject domain name constitutes registration for the purpose of the Policy: MC Enterprises v. Mark Segal,
WIPO Case No. ...
2014-08-12 - Case Details
The Respondent is Camille Walters of Breda, the Netherlands, self-represented.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (“Domain Name”) is registered with Metaregistrar BV (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Polygenix Group Co.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0163; Legacy Health System v. Nijat Hassanov,
WIPO Case No. D2008-1708).
Furthermore, the evidence of bad faith is further strengthened by the fact that the Domain Name resolves to a website listing other domain names for sale. ...
2018-08-17 - Case Details
See 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.”); National Football League Properties, Inc. and Chargers Football Company v. One Sex Entertainment Co., a/k/a chargergirls.net,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0118; N.C.P. Marketing Group, Inc. v. Entredomains,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0387.
The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, and domain name . ...
2021-02-05 - Case Details
Respondent is Protected Domain Services of United States of America and dior-jewelry.com, gaoyu liu of China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Name.com LLC.
3. ...The Panel concurs with previous UDRP decisions holding that registration of a well-known trademark as a domain name is a clear indication of bad faith in itself, even without considering other elements. See PepsiCo, Inc. v. ...
2012-02-20 - Case Details
The Respondent is Paul Stephey Panama city, Florida United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name was registered with Go Daddy
Software.
3. ...The Panel finds that the element ABSOLUT clearly is the dominant part of the domain name, thus indicating a connection to the Complainant.
The trademark ABSOLUT has been subject of a number
WIPO cases: WIPO Case No D2003-0437, V&S
Vin & Spirit AB v. ...
2005-11-21 - Case Details
Furthermore, the hyphen “-” which is added in the portion of the Domain Name, does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity, as it is also non-distinctive (Arcelormittal v. ...Because the KPMG mark had been widely used 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 the Domain Name (Tudor Games, Inc. v. ...
2019-10-03 - Case Details
D2000-0776; LouisVuitton v. Net-Promotion,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0430.
Panels disregard the gTLD suffix in determining whether a disputed domain name is identical or similar to a complainant's marks. ...Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The Panel concludes that this activity demonstrates bad faith use. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. ...
2010-03-15 - Case Details
It is well-established that the gTLD used as technical part of a domain name may be disregarded (see Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Andrew Miller,
WIPO Case No. D2008-1345). ...D2011-2096 (“the descriptive suffix ‘buyonline’ as used in the disputed domain name cannot save the domain name”); F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Ivan Varypaev,
WIPO Case No. D2014-0112, (“The only difference between the Domain Name and the trademark of the Complainant is the addition of the words ‘buy’ and ‘online’. ...
2020-01-30 - Case Details
The
“absolut” part of the domain name forms the characteristic
part of the domain name. In the view of the Panel, the disputed domain name
is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The registration
and use of the domain name constitutes a risk of confusion as users
of the Internet would consider the domain name to be part of what has been called
the “ABSOLUT ‘family’ of domain
names” (V&V Vin&Sprit AB v. ...
2005-10-21 - Case Details
In fact, the Domain Name is not currently being used for any purpose
whatsoever, being presently kept “under construction” (see Revlon
Consumer Products Corporation v. ...D2003-0022; Nokia, Inc.
v. B. B. de Boer, WIPO Case No. D2000-1397);
(ii)Respondent has not conducted any legitimate commercial or non-commercial activity in connection with the Domain Name;
(iii) Respondent has submitted no response and therefore has provided no evidence whatsoever of any actual or contemplated good faith use of the Domain Name;
(iv) Respondent has failed to provide evidence of his rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name; and
(v) it is difficult to imagine any circumstance in which Respondent could use the Domain Name as a web site address without infringing Complainant’s trademark, given that Internet users would inevitably be misled into believing that there is a sort of connection between the Domain Name and Complainant’s product VIAGRA.
...
2004-09-29 - Case Details
The Respondent has not contested the Complainant’s statements and evidence arguing illegitimate, commercial use of the disputed domain name.
Panels acting under the Policy have held that registration
of a domain name incorporating another’s famous mark does not confer any
rights or legitimate interests in the domain name to the Respondent, but rather
indicates bad faith under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy (see Telstra Corporation
Limited v. ...The Respondent has not rebutted Complainant’s allegations or evidence stating that the disputed domain name resolves to a site where unauthorized and/or counterfeit PRADA products are offered.
Following Prada S.A. v. ...
2007-01-16 - Case Details
See Compagnie Générale
des Etablissements Michelin v. Shuitu Chen, WIPO Case No. D2016-1924; Compagnie Générale des
Etablissements Michelin v. Isaac Goldstein, Hulmiho Ukolen, Poste restante/Domain Admin, Whois
protection, this complany does not own this domain name s.r.o., WIPO Case No. ...The absence of evidence of the
Respondent’s good faith use of the disputed domain name, also carries an inference, although not a
determination, of bad faith use. See Alstom, Bouygues v. ...
2022-11-03 - Case Details
It is beyond cavil that this type of use of the domain name constitutes bad faith in the context of the Policy.”); Teleperformance v. Venkateshwara Distributor Private Limited and PrivacyProtect.org,
WIPO Case No. ...Nevertheless, Respondents’ bad faith use and registration of the Domain Name in this case must be established independently from the prior UDRP panel decisions. Teleperformance v. ...
2010-11-26 - Case Details