David Lee;
WIPO Case No. D2009-1758, Guccio Gucci S.p.A. v. Zhiyuan Zou, Zouzhi ZhouO, Fujian Anfu, etc.
Lastly, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...With respect to the argument of use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, the Complainant refers to the following decisions: Guccio Gucci S.p.A. v. Domain Administrato – Domain Administrator,
WIPO Case No. ...
2021-06-22 - 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 CIALIS trademark (citing Lilly Icos LLC v. ...It is well established that the top level designation used as part of a domain name should be disregarded: (see Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2011-05-10 - Case Details
See Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., WIPO
Case No. D2000-0020.
Once a complainant makes a prima facie showing that a respondent lacks
rights to the domain name at issue, the respondent must come forward with proof
that it has some legitimate interest in the domain name to rebut this presumption.
...See Chanel, Inc.
v. Cologne Zone, WIPO Case No. D2000-1809
(finding no legitimate interest in use of CHANEL as part of domain name leading
to website selling various types of perfume). ...
2004-11-03 - Case Details
It is well accepted that a ccTLD may be ignored when assessing identity or confusing similarity of a trademark and a domain name (see, e.g. VAT Holding AG v. Vat.com,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0607; Billa Aktiengesellschaft v. ...D2000-1563 (respondent’s default alone sufficient to conclude that it had no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name). See V&V Supremo Foods, Inc. v. pxlchk1@gmail.com,
WIPO Case No. D2006-1373.
The failure of the Respondent to reply to the Complainant’s contentions and the evidence adduced by the Complainant lead the Panel to find that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...
2012-04-19 - Case Details
According to the Complainant, the Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, and has never made any commercial use of the domain name or maintained a criticism site using the domain name. ...As noted in Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0003, passive holding of a domain name can be considered
as bad faith where it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or
contemplated active use of the disputed domain name that would not be illegitimate.
...
2007-04-23 - Case Details
Inc. v. Logicland Corporación,
WIPO Case No. DVE2001-0001. The Panel therefore finds that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith in full satisfaction of Policy paragraph 4(b).
...D2002-0787; HSBC Finance Corporation v. Clear Blue Sky Inc. and Domain Manager,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0062 (“Any such bad faith is compounded when the domain name owner or its duly authorized privacy service, upon receipt of notice that the domain name is identical to a registered trademark, refuses to respond or even to disclose the domain name owner’s identity to the trademark owner. ...
2012-04-24 - Case Details
In this case, the dominant element “accor” remains recognizable in the disputed domain name. See Banconsumer Service, Inc. v. Mary Langthorne, Financial Advisor,
WIPO Case No. D2001-1367; Royal Bank of Canada v. ...D2006-0964; and mVisible Technologies, Inc. v. Navigation Catalyst Systems, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1141.
In this case, the disputed domain name resolved to a Registrar’s website page, and MX servers were configured on the disputed domain name, with the subsequent risk of phishing activities, further suggesting bad faith in the use of the disputed domain name.
...
2021-10-27 - Case Details
iv) The Complainant submits that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
(v) The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to it.
...See Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
As previously noted, the Respondent offered no reason for selecting the disputed domain name, and no information is provided on what rights or legitimate interests the Respondent may have in the disputed domain name.
...
2021-07-16 - Case Details
D2007-0286).
With reference to the use of a domain name to generate confusion with competing activities, see e.g. Edmunds.com, Inc. v. Ult. Search, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2001-1319 (“registration and use of a domain name to redirect Internet users to websites of competing organizations constitutes bad faith registration and use under the Policy.”); NetWizards, Inc. v. ...
2012-08-14 - Case Details
The addition of the top level domain suffix does not dispel confusion. The top level domain of the disputed domain name is to be ignored for the purposes of assessing similarity as it is a functional requirement of the domain name system, which is the common view of panelists and held in earlier cases such as DHL Operations B.V. v. ...The use of the added descriptive word does not change the overall impression of the domain name as being dominated by the term “BLACKBERRY” and does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark (see Microsoft Corporation v. ...
2012-03-23 - Case Details
The Respondent is not listed as the registrant for any of the domain names associated with these websites;
- numerous panels have held that use of a domain name to redirect consumers
to the relevant Respondent’s website as a result of inadvertent or slight misspellings
does not create rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (NetWizards,
Inc. v. ...D2000-0010,
Home Interior & Gifts, Inc. v. Home Interiors, of March 7, 2000:"[U]se
of a counter at the website to which the domain name resolves without other
content is tantamount to an offer to sell the domain name...
2003-03-28 - Case Details
The addition of other terms in the domain name, even derogatory ones, does not affect a finding that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to complainant’s trademark for purposes of the Policy (see Chubb Security Australia PTY Limited v. ...D2006-0451; see also Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. Moreover, the gTLD “.com” is generally without legal significance since use of a gTLD is technically required to operate the Disputed Domain Name and it does not serve to identify the source of the goods or services provided by the registrant of the Disputed Domain Name (see Statoil ASA v. ...
2015-06-03 - Case Details
CredoNic.com / Domain Name for Sale,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0755; Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Midas Search Limited,
WIPO Case No. ...See Moncler S.p.A. v. Bestinfo,
WIPO Case No. D2004-1049 (“the Panel notes that the Respondent’s name is ‘Bestinfo’ and that it can therefore not be commonly known by the Domain Name.”)
...
2020-07-16 - Case Details
The Domain Name and Registrar
2.1 The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Nameview Inc (the “Registrar”).
3. ...This “click-through revenue” is then ordinarily split between the domain name parking service provider and the owner of the domain name (see for example Owens Corning v. ...
2008-10-15 - Case Details
Furthermore, the addition of the generic Top-Level domain ("gTLD") ".com" is not an element of distinctiveness that is generally taken into consideration when evaluating the identity and similarity of the Complainant trademark and the Domain Name, because 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).
Moreover, it is well-settled case law that the practice of typosquatting may in itself be evidence of a bad faith registration of a domain name (see, e.g., Longs Drug Stores California, Inc. v. ...
2015-11-24 - Case Details
It is established that, where a mark is the distinctive part of a domain name, the domain name is considered to be confusingly similar to the registered mark (DHL Operations B.V. v. ...This “click-through revenue” typically may be split between the domain name parking service provider and the owner of the domain name (see for example Owens Corning v. ...
2010-04-06 - Case Details
The addition of the letter “f” in the beginning of the Domain Name does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity (Express Scripts, Inc. v. Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. / Domaindeals, Domain Administrator,
WIPO Case No. ...The Panel concludes that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith.
Because the XIFINITY mark was well known at the time of the Domain Name registration by Respondent, as repeatedly recognized (Comcast Corporation v. ...
2020-04-14 - Case Details
Respondent is Yu Du of Chongzuo, Guangxi, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc. ...D2000-0226; Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin, Maison Fondée en 1772 v. The Polygenix Group Co.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0163.
In short, the manner in which Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name demonstrates bad faith.
...
2012-06-12 - Case Details
D2000-1157. Parfums Christian Dior v. Javier Garcia Quintas and Christiandior.net,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0226).
The Panel is of the opinion that the Respondent has registered the contested Domain Name with the intent to inhibit the Complainant by using said Domain Name, which is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark and company name (see Baccarat SA v. ...According to several WIPO UDRP decisions “passive holding” of a domain name constitutes use in bad faith (Accor v. Howell Edwin,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0980; Ladbroke Group plc v. ...
2010-12-13 - Case Details
Id., (citing De Agostini S.p.A. v. Marco Cialone,
WIPO Case No. DTV2002 -0005).
Complainant avers that Respondent has no registered trademarks or trade names corresponding to the disputed domain name . ...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, used and widely promoted by Complainant before Respondent registered the disputed domain name. ...
2011-11-28 - Case Details