Softech Ltd., DNS Administrator (gold),
WIPO Case No. D2007-1699; and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. P Martin,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0323).
The addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.host” to the disputed domain name constitutes a technical requirement of the Domain Name System (“DNS”). ...The case file contains no evidence that demonstrates that the Respondent has used or has made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services (see Valentino S.p.A. v. ...
2021-11-10 - Case Details
The Respondent is Emir Ulu of Kayseri, Turkey.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name () is registered with PSI-USA, Inc dba Domain Robot.
3. ...In addition, the Respondent was a party in several UDRP “.com” domain name disputes concerning third party trademarks, in which the panels ordered a transfer because they held that the Respondent had registered or used the domain name in bad faith (see Audi AG v. ...
2009-03-20 - Case Details
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. 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. ...
2020-11-06 - Case Details
D2014-2035; Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. v. 1&1 Internet, Inc. / Carlos Guevara,
WIPO Case No. D2012-1424).
In light of the above and of the fact that the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” has no legal significance when comparing the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark (see Coutts & Co. v. ...The fact that the disputed domain name is not currently resolving to a webpage does not affect the above conclusion. It is an established principle that the lack of active use of a domain name does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith (see Arla Foods Amba v. ...
2016-06-16 - Case Details
The Respondent has not submitted any evidence to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and there is prima facie indication in the case file that there are no rights or legitimate interests on the part of the Respondent in the domain name, see paragraph 4(c) of the Policy (see Société des Bains de Mer et du Cercle des Etrangers à Monaco v. ...Only someone who was familiar with the Complainant's marks would have registered the confusingly similar domain name (see Aventis, Aventis Pharma SA. v. John Smith,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0850; AT&T Corp. v. Xinzhiyuan Management Consulting Co., Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2009-11-20 - Case Details
It is therefore apparent that the Domain Name is used by the Respondent as a form of third party advertising service (see mainly Owens Corning v. NA,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1143 and Paris Hilton v. Deepak Kumar,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1364, on the mechanism of “domain name parking” or “pay-per-click” services).
...
2013-02-14 - Case Details
Moreover, there is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by that disputed domain
name or otherwise had rights in the disputed domain name (Abbott Laboratories v. Li Jian Fu, Li Jian Fu,
WIPO Case No. ...case=D2012-1213
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Eli Lilly and Company v. anilx cols
Case No. D2023-3641
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2023-10-13 - Case Details
The list includes: (1) using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services; (2) being commonly known by the domain name; or (3) making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers. ...A complainant must show a prima facie case that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name, after which the burden of rebuttal passes to the respondent. See, e.g., Croatia Airlines d.d. v. ...
2012-09-04 - Case Details
KG v. Name Redacted,
WIPO Case No. D2020-1149.
The disputed domain name is neither connected to a website nor does it redirect to third party websites.
5. ...Such behaviour cannot constitute a bona fide or legitimate use of the disputed domain name (see also Bright Imperial Ltd. v. Cleiton da Silva Pardim,
WIPO Case No. D2013-1548).
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. ...
2021-06-01 - Case Details
As decided in other UDRP cases, “the test of identity or confusing similarity under the Policy is confined to a comparison of the disputed domain name and the trademark alone”. LEGO Juris A/S v. Name Administrator, Hong Kong Domains, LLC.,
WIPO Case No. ...As decided before, “knowledge of a corresponding mark at the time of registration of the domain name suggests bad faith”. Caixa D´Estalvis I Pensions de Barcelona (“La Caixa”) v. Eric Adam,
WIPO Case No. ...
2015-06-03 - Case Details
D2012-0412; Barclays Bank PLC v. Miami Investment Brokers Inc,
WIPO Case No. D2012-1213).
C. Domain Name is Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant put up an extensive list of its registered trademarks and the domain names which it owns in many countries.
...Bad faith can exist where a domain name contains in its entirety a Complainant’s trademark (Cellular One Group v. Paul Brien,
WIPO Case No. ...
2019-07-16 - Case Details
The Complainant also contends that the Respondent “has not demonstrated any attempt to make legitimate use of the Domain Name and website, which evinces a lack of rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name” (citing Philip Morris USA Inc. v. ...It is well established that the gTLD used as part of a domain name is normally disregarded: (see Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2021-04-16 - Case Details
The diversion of traffic to third parties and their products demonstrates that Respondent is using the disputed domain name for commercial purposes. See, e.g., The Bear Stearns Companies Inc. v. Darryl Pope,
WIPO Case No. ...Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0003.
Respondent’s choice of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark is strong evidence of bad faith. ...
2013-10-10 - Case Details
In this regard, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
Based on the evidence submitted by the Complainant, the Panel finds that there are no indications that the Respondent has been commonly known by the Domain Name or has made any legitimate commercial or noncommercial use of the Domain Name (see, e.g., Fry's Electronics, Inc v. ...Several UDPR panels have held that a respondent cannot be considered as using the disputed domain name for the bona fide offering of goods or services, nor as making legitimate commercial or noncommercial or fair use of such domain name when using the domain name to attract nternet users to a website which offers competing services (see America Online, Inc. v. ...
2017-07-11 - Case Details
The addition of geographical terms does not ordinarily serve to distinguish a domain name from registered marks. See Inter-IKEA v. Polanski,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1614; America Online, Inc. v. ...Moreover, the Panel notes that many panels have held that bad faith use of a domain name by the respondent may also result from the fact its good faith use is in no way plausible (See Audi AG v. ...
2012-07-04 - Case Details
It is well established that the generic 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. ...D2006-1107 (“using false contact information in registering the domain name to conceal its identity may be an additional proof of the Respondent’s bad faith”); Steelcase Development Corporation v. ...
2013-11-27 - Case Details
See Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Wei-Chun Hsia,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0923.
Here, Complainant’s MICHELIN mark is fully incorporated in the disputed domain name. ...Stanley Filoramo,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0822 (“[t]he fact that the disputed domain name is redirected to a pornographic website is an indication that the domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.”); Ty, Inc., v. ...
2020-07-20 - Case Details
The Respondent is Domain Vault, Domain Vault LLC, of Dallas, Texas, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the "Disputed Domain Name") is registered with Name.com LLC (the "Registrar").
3. ...Inc v. Blue Q Ltd, et al,
WIPO Case No. D2011-0702).").
Finally, the addition of a gTLD such as ".com" in a domain name is technically required. ...
2014-12-31 - Case Details
v) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s STATOIL trademark in which Complainant has rights. ...D2009-0947; and Siebel Systems, Inc v. Implementation Services Group, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2002-1070.
Regarding the hyphen, in this Panel’s view, addition of the same in the disputed domain name is insignificant and does nothing to avoid confusing similarity of the disputed domain name with the respective STATOIL trademark of the Complainant.
...
2016-10-31 - 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 fame and 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. ...
2013-04-09 - Case Details