The first Domain Name incorporates the said trademarks of Complainant in their entirety. This is sufficient to establish confusing similarity (Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...Furthermore, as Complainant demonstrates, the first Domain Name was also used in connection with scam activity. The use of the first Domain Name for an illegal activity such as impersonation or fraud cannot confer rights or legitimate interests on Respondent (L’ Oréal v. ...
2018-11-23 - Case Details
The Complainant alleges that the addition of the word “shoe”, is not relevant and will not have any impact on the overall impression of the dominant part of the name, citing precedents: Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Rojeen Rayaneh.,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0488. The Complainant also alleges that the addition of the top-level domain “com” does not have any impact on the overall impression of the dominant portion of the domain name and is therefore irrelevant to determine the confusing similarity between the trademark and domain name.
...Moreover, there is no disclaimer on the website describing the non-existent relationship with the Complainant, citing precedent: Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Ron Anderson,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0312. Thirdly, there is no evidence of any fair or noncommercial uses of the disputed domain name, citing precedent: Drexel University v. ...
2010-11-24 - Case Details
D2001-0932) nor by the fact that the trademark includes additional generic elements which are not included in the disputed domain name (cf. Corcom, Inc. v. Jazette Enterprises Limited,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1218: omission of the word “sports”; Shell Vacations LLC, Shell Vacations Club, L.P. v. ...D2000-0429; Phenomedia AG v. Meta Verzeichnis Com,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0374).
On balance, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark because the essence of the trademark is incorporated in the domain name (and also in the Panel’s view, some Internet users might think that the “xpand” part of the domain name is referring to the XPAND trademark).
...
2010-12-06 - Case Details
Finally, the addition of the suffix “.com” is non-distinctive because it is required for the registration of the domain name. RX America, LLC v. Mattew Smith,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0540; Sanofi-Aventis v. US Online Pharmacies,
WIPO Case No. ...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. See Pepsico, Inc. v. Zhavoronkov,
WIPO Case No. ...
2012-02-22 - Case Details
Cimpress Schweiz GmbH, Cimpress Schweiz GmbH,
WIPO Case No. D2019-1230 with regard to the domain name ; DeLaval Holding AB v. Cimpress Schweiz GmbH,
WIPO Case No. D2019-1086 with regard to the domain name ; bioMérieux v. ...Cimpress Schweiz GmbH,
WIPO Case No. D2018-0992 with regard to the domain name ; Select Equity Group, L.P. v. Cimpress Schweiz GmbH,
WIPO Case No. D2017-1140 with regard to the domain name and Sanofi v. ...
2020-04-02 - Case Details
Childers of West Des Moines, Iowa, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Todaynic.com, Inc. ...Finally, the addition of the gTLD suffix “.com” is generally non-distinctive because it is required for the registration of the domain name. RX America, LLC v. Mattew Smith,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0540; Sanofi-Aventis v. US Online Pharmacies,
WIPO Case No. ...
2015-03-25 - Case Details
The Respondent is Jet Stream Enterprises Limited, St Johns, Antigua and Barbuda.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is . It is registered with eNom, Inc. ...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. ...
2010-05-25 - Case Details
See Oki Data Americas Inc. v. ASD Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0903. The addition of a generic term does not serve to distinguish the domain name from the trademark, but may reinforce the association of the Complainant's trademark with a domain name. ...D2000-0275; Société Air France v. RBlue,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0290.
In this case, apart from the generic top level domain, the disputed domain name at issue consists of the Complainant's trademark VALIUM and the suffix “plus”. ...
2009-01-06 - Case Details
See Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. 2220 Internet Coordinator,
WIPO Case No. D2005-1184(“Combining the two trademarks in the disputed domain name does not serve to distinguish the domain name from the Complainant’s trademarks.”); see also Société des Produits Nestlé SA v. ...Such use of a domain name to generate revenue is, by its very definition, a commercial use of a domain name. See, e.g., Mubadala Trade Marks Holding Company - LLC & Mubadala Investment Company PJSC v. ...
2018-11-21 - Case Details
Furthermore, the gTLD “.com” in the disputed domain name does not affect the determination that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark RADIO MARIA in which the Complainant has rights (see also Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. ...The Panel is therefore convinced that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant when it registered the disputed domain name and the Panelist can find no plausible circumstances in which the Respondent could legitimately use the disputed domain name (see also Microsoft Corporation v. ...
2019-08-21 - Case Details
The Respondent is Web Advertising, Corp., Nassau,
Bahamas.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name
is registered with BelgiumDomains, LLC, (herein the “domain name in dispute”).
3. ...Bill Keith, WIPO
Case No. D 2000-0299); Champagne Lanson v. Development Services
/ MailPlanet. corn, Inc; WIPO Case No.
D2006-0006.
The Complainants submit that the Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name in dispute insofar as there is no resemblance between the name constituting the domain name (didierguerin) and the corporate name of the Respondent (Webadvertising, Corp).
...
2007-05-14 - Case Details
Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. v. John Taxiarchos,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0561.
This Panel agrees that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the REVLON mark. ...Furthermore, the Disputed Domain Name includes the entire REVLON mark. This supports a finding of bad faith. See Cellular One Group v. ...
2012-02-01 - Case Details
- The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name attempts to associate itself with the Complainant’s online service under the trade name/domain name by incorporating the name of the service in full. ...Complainant contends that incorporation of a trade mark in entirety in a domain name is sufficient in establishing confusing similarity as has been held in UDRP decision - Magnum Piering Inc v. ...
2013-01-31 - Case Details
FA 96493; Cable News Network LP v. Stonybrook Investments LTD, NAF Case No. FA 96282 - all decisions dealing with the element “www” within the domain name disputed in each case). ...Furthermore, it is well established that the specific top level domain name generally is not an element of distinctiveness that can be taken into consideration when evaluating the identity or confusing similarity between the complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name (see Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...
2009-06-30 - Case Details
It is also well established 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. ...Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store, NAF Case No. 96209 (finding that Respondent does not have rights in a domain name when Respondent is not known by the mark); Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. ...
2007-08-03 - Case Details
D2000-0607; Shangri-La International Hotel Management Limited v. NetIncome Ventures Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2006-1315. Removing the “.com” from the disputed domain name leaves only the LORTAB trademark.
...The 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. ...
2011-07-07 - Case Details
The Respondent is Jacky Durand, Carrefour Sa of Paris, France.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Tucows Inc. ...In this case, the Domain Name reproduces the Complainant’s trademark CARREFOUR which previous panels have considered to be “well-known” or “famous” (Carrefour v. ...
2018-12-13 - Case Details
D2007-1857. As decided in Gene Kelly Image Trust v. BWI Domain Manager,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0342, “[t]he existence of sponsored links on the website also clearly demonstrates that the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name as a legitimate non-commercial fan site. ...See, Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847. That circumstance is also evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy.
...
2009-06-25 - Case Details
Jason Lau, Sharing,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0783, where the domain name was held to be confusingly similar to the BELSTAFF trademark; Lime Wire LLC v. ...Scot banner,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0965, where the domain name was held to be confusingly similar to the IBM trademark because many Internet users would assume that the domain name identifies a website from which they can download software supplied by the Complainant; Nintendo of America Inc v. ...
2013-11-26 - Case Details
Before
the Domain Name was registered, the Respondent did not carry on any business
and was not commonly known by a domain name or any other name consisting of
SOFITEL. ...See ACCOR, Société
Anonyme à Directoire et Conseil de Surveillance v. SEOCHO, WIPO
Case No. D2002-0517 (August 12, 2002)).
6.2 Does the Respondent Have Rights or Legitimate Interests in the Domain Name
?
...
2002-09-06 - Case Details