Furthermore, the Panel also agrees with the finding of previous WIPO 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. ...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. ...
2018-07-12 - Case Details
D2005-0591; and Microsoft Corporation v. Gioacchino Zerbo,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0644.
B. Respondent
(i) Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Respondent does not dispute that the disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant's mark TRAVELPRO.
...Here, Complainant has proffered no evidence that Respondent likely was aware of its trademark rights at the time it registered the domain name or otherwise was targeting Complainant or its mark."
and Audiopoint, Inc. v. eCorp a/k/a Chad Folkening,
WIPO Case No. ...
2016-08-19 - Case Details
Furthermore, the Complainant submits that the Respondent acted in bad faith because it knew or should have known about the Complainant's rights in and to the Mark when registering the disputed domain name.
(v) Finally, the Complainant contends that the Respondent acted in bad faith because the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name harms the Mark by tarnishing and diluting it.
...In addition, the Panel notes that many UDRP panels have held that bad faith use of a domain name by a respondent may also result from the fact its good faith use is in no way plausible (see Audi AG v. ...
2014-04-10 - Case Details
The Panel believes that people considering the disputed domain name without awareness of its content may think that the disputed domain name is in some way connected and associated with the Complainant: this situation is known as “initial interest confusion” (see Covance, Inc. and Covance Laboratories Ltd v. ...D2007-1412 and Mastercard International Incorporated v. Total Card Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1411).
Concerning the use of the disputed domain name, the Complainant has proven to the satisfaction of the Panel that the disputed domain name resolves to a web page that advertises and offers hotel services in competition with the Complainant. ...
2014-01-17 - Case Details
The addition of the number “2” does not prevent a
finding of confusing similarity between the Complainant’s BVLGARI mark and the disputed domain name.
(Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Rojeen Rayaneh, WIPO Case No. D2004-0488 and particularly Carvana,
LLC v. .../ Fundacion Comercio Electronico, Carolina Rodrigues, WIPO Case No.
D2022-1099).
The generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.vip” featured in the disputed domain name is viewed as a standard
registration requirement and not an element that generally would be taken into consideration when
evaluating the identity and similarity of the Complainant’s trademark and the domain name (Magnum Piering,
Inc. v. ...
2024-05-22 - Case Details
Indeed, Respondent has maintained the website at the disputed domain name despite the Complainant’s objections.
Such silence, ongoing cybersquatting, and dilution are further evidence of Respondent’s bad faith (see Compiere Inc. v. ...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. ...
2011-12-19 - Case Details
The evidence indicates that the Respondent
was aware of and intended to unfairly benefit from the confusing similarity between the disputed domain
name and the ONLYFANS trademark for commercial gain. The Panel concludes that the Respondent
registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith (see Guardant, Inc. v. ...case=D2007-0501
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Fenix International Limited v. PRAKASH Kumar, YTPrakash
Case No. D2024-4805
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. ...
2025-01-09 - Case Details
Even if the Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name, the Complainant asserts that it is inconceivable that the Respondent could make a legitimate use of the disputed domain name given the Complainant’s longtime and exclusive use of the MARLBORO marks and the strength of the brand, citing Philip Morris USA Inc. v. ...Nor in the circumstances of this case does the Respondent’s present passive holding of the disputed domain name support any claim of legitimacy. See Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Private, supra; Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2014-05-08 - Case Details
The Respondent is Buy Meissen of London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Tucows Inc. (the “Registrar”).
3. ...D2010-0148; Burberry Limited v. Domain Admin,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0703; Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. v. John Sharp,
WIPO Case No. ...
2013-12-24 - Case Details
The addition of the generic top level domain “.com” is not an element of distinctiveness that can be taken into consideration when evaluating the identity and similarity of the Complainant’s trade mark and the Domain Name (see, e.g., Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...The Panel concurs with the understanding of several other UDRP panels that passive holding of a domain name can amount to a respondent acting in bad faith. The concept of passive holding may apply even in the event of mere “parking” by a third party of a domain name (see Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2014-02-26 - Case Details
Privacy Hero Inc. / Honey Salt ltd, pat honey salt,
WIPO Case No. D2020-2836, for the domain name ; Cargotec Oyj, Cargotec Patenter AB v. Honey Salt Ltd., CAC Case 103423, for the domain name ; and, Naos v. ...Honey Salt Ltd., CAC Case 103423, for the domain name ; Naos v. Honey Salt Ltd., CAC Case No.103142, for the domain name ; and, Capsugel Belgium NV v. ...
2021-03-15 - Case Details
See Quester Group, Inc. v. Domain Capital,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0594.
The disputed domain name is virtually identical to the Complainant’s registered trademarks and registered domain names. ...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant must demonstrate that the Respondent both registered the disputed domain name in bad faith and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. A. Nattermann & Cie. GmbH and Sanofi-aventis v. ...
2011-03-07 - Case Details
D2013-0150; RapidShare AG, Christian Schmid v. InvisibleRegistration.com, domain Admin,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1059). Likewise, the Domain Name is virtually identical to Complainants' domain name . ...The Complainant further claims: "The disputed domain name has been registered in the gTLD <.holiday>. The gTLD used for the registration of a domain name has no influence on the assessment of the similarity between the domain names and the Complainant's trademarks merely because it is necessary for the registration of the domain name itself (IndiaMART InterMESH Limited v. ...
2015-04-17 - Case Details
The Complainant asserts that UDRP 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. ...Secondly, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has never been known by the disputed domain name and has no legitimate interest in the SWAROVSKI marks or the name “Swarovski”, citing Marriott International, Inc. v. ...
2011-01-28 - Case Details
The Complainant is furthermore the owner of the domain name .
The disputed domain name was first created (according to the Whois) on September 26, 2000 .
5. ...As held in 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”, and in Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B. v. ...
2008-03-26 - Case Details
D2008-1546; Burberry Limited v. Forum LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2006-1076.
Finally, the addition of the suffix “.com” is non-distinctive because it is required for the registration of the domain name. ...Champagne Lanson v. Development Services/MailPlanet.com Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0006 (pay per click landing page not legitimate where ads are keyed to the trademark value of the domain name); The Knot, Inc v. ...
2010-10-15 - Case Details
Respondent's commercial activities undertaken through use of the disputed domain name are neither fair use nor bona fide under the Policy. Id.; see, e.g. America Online, Inc. v. ...Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0003.
The Panel infers that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in attempts to trade on the fame of Complainant's trademark, which was registered and used in the 1990s, and widely promoted before Respondent registered the disputed domain name. ...
2009-04-30 - Case Details
Panels acting under the Policy have held that in certain circumstances registration of a domain name incorporating another’s well-known mark does not confer any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name to the respondent, but rather indicates bad faith under the Policy (see Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...Sonoma International LDC,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0131; Expedia, Inc. v. Miles Pennella,
WIPO Case No. D2001-1416), and that other circumstances may constitute evidence showing that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (Telstra v. ...
2010-09-17 - Case Details
Respondents are Almantas Kakareka, and Hostmaster Oneandone, 1&1 Internet, Inc., both of United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (“Domain Name”) is registered with Schlund + Partner AG.
3. ...This cannot be considered a bona fide offering of services by Respondents. See Sanrio Company Ltd v. Neric Lau,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0172 (interests in the domain name not legitimate where there is no authorized association with trademark owner); Telstra Corporation v. ...
2008-02-19 - Case Details
Using a disputed domain name to operate phishing scheme does not give the Respondent rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name (see Juno Online Servs., Inc. v. ...The phishing scheme is evidence of the Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name (see Hess Corp. v. GR, NAF Claim No. 770909; Juno Online Servs., Inc. v. Nelson, NAF Claim No. 241972; and Morgan Stanley v. ...
2012-07-10 - Case Details