The addition of the letters “www” before the word “nestle”, without the period, does not serve to distinguish the domain name from the Complainants' trademark. Omitting the period in between the letters “www” and a domain name is a common typing error, and accordingly the addition of these letters as a prefix does not serve to reduce confusion between a trademark and a domain name (See BHP Billiton Innovation Pty Ltd v. ...D2000-0624 and Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0455).
The Respondent has failed to show that it has acquired any trademark rights in respect of the domain name or that the domain name is used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
...
2010-02-12 - Case Details
See also The Sportsman’s
Guide, Inc. v. JoyRide, WIPO Case No.
D2003-0153 (respondent’s use of confusingly similar domain name to
profit from confusion of internet users was a parasitic use).
...See also The Sportsman’s
Guide, Inc. v. JoyRide, WIPO Case No.
D2003-0153 (respondent’s use of confusingly similar domain name to
profit from confusion of internet users was a parasitic use). ...
2004-11-03 - Case Details
The Domain Name incorporates the said trademark of Complainant in its entirety. This is sufficient to establish confusing similarity (Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...The Panel concludes that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith. Because the MICHELIN mark is so well-known and had been widely used and registered at the time of the Domain Name registration, the Panel finds it more likely than not that Respondent had Complainant’s mark in mind when registering this Domain Name (Parfums Christian Dior v. ...
2018-11-26 - Case Details
The inclusion of the gTLD “.com” in the disputed domain name constitutes a technical requirement of the
Domain Name System (“DNS”), and therefore has no legal significance in the present case (see
CARACOLITO S SAS v. ...The abovementioned facts show that not only did the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in
bad faith, but also that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in bad faith (see BHP Billiton
Innovation Pty Ltd. v. ...
2023-07-04 - Case Details
The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name which is sufficient to establish that it
is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered mark (Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. ...D2022-1099).
The generic top-level domain (“.com”) 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 disputed domain name
(Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...
2024-08-26 - Case Details
D2022-1399;
- Sodexo v. Host Master, Transure Enterprise Ltd, WIPO Case No. D2022-1140.
The domain name (hereinafter referred as the “Disputed Domain Name”) has
been registered on June 19, 2022, and does not resolve to an active website.
5. ...D2000-0102;
- eAuto L.L.C. v. Net Me Up, WIPO Case No. D2000-0104.
Thus, the Disputed Domain Name may then refer to SODEXO’s official website. ...
2022-10-27 - Case Details
This is a signal that any trademark claim to the domain name was abandoned and that the domain name could be registered in good faith. Corbis Corporation v. ...Mobile Communication Service Inc. v. WebReg, RN,
WIPO Case No. D2005-1304).
Complainant has made a prima facie case showing that Respondent has used the domain name in dispute in bad faith by featuring links on the website associated with the domain name in dispute that incorporate Complainant’s service mark GOLD MEDAL TRAVEL and Complainant’s domain name .
...
2008-03-25 - Case Details
D2018-1678; Sanofi v. Linpinfeng,
WIPO Case No. D2018-1441).
Furthermore SANOFI is a fictitious word. Because the SANOFI mark had been widely used and registered at the time of the Domain Name registration by Respondent, the Panel finds likely that Respondent had Complainant’s mark in mind when registering the Domain Name (Tudor Games, Inc. v. ...The non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith (Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,
WIPO Case No. ...
2019-02-28 - Case Details
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. ...It seems [highly] unlikely . . . that Respondent would have chosen this name randomly.” Kahn Lucas Lancaster, Inc. v. Marketing Total S.A.,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1236. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...
2010-08-06 - Case Details
That numerous previous UDRP panels have found that “once the Complainant makes a prima facie showing that the registrant does not have rights or legitimate interest in the domain name, the evidentiary burden shifts to the registrant to rebut the showing by providing evidence of its rights or interests in the domain name” (citing The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. ...The addition of said generic term “radio” to the trademark EURONEWS does not add a distinctive character to the disputed domain name, and it does not eliminate the confusing similarity between said trademark and the disputed domain name (see CBS Broadcasting Inc. v. ...
2011-10-21 - Case Details
Indeed, it is well established that the offer to sell a domain name in excess of the out of pocket expenses of the respondent in registering the domain name can be compelling evidence of bad faith registration and use (Imara Trade Marks BVI Limited v. Direct Privacy ID 1078D, Domain Name Proxy Service, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2012-2183, Massachusetts Medical Society v. Michael Karle,
WIPO Case No. ...
2019-10-14 - Case Details
See also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. MacLeod, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0662 (first element of Policy is satisfied where
domain name wholly incorporates complainant's mark). ...See Chanel, Inc. v. Cologne Zone, WIPO
Case No. D2000-1809, (finding no legitimate interest in use of
CHANEL mark as part of domain name leading to web site selling various types
of perfume). ...
2004-06-04 - Case Details
It is well established that the top-level designation used as part of a domain name may be disregarded: (see Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr.,
WIPO Case No. ...On any objective view, the Respondent is not a reseller with a legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name such that it could meet the tests set out in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2013-04-03 - Case Details
The Complainant contends rightly in the present case that the domain name was registered and used in bad faith.
It has been held in PepsiCo, Inc. v. Zhavoronkov,
WIPO Case No. ...As held in Société des Hôtels Médidien v. LaPorte
Holdings, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2004-0849,
the use of the domain name to divert web traffic to a search engine and linking
portal for profit and the advertising of sponsored websites clearly show use
of the domain name in bad faith.
...
2006-06-13 - Case Details
The critical inquiry under the first element of the Policy is whether the mark and domain name, when directly compared, are identical or confusingly similar. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale,
WIPO Case No. ...Match.com, LP v. Bill Zag and NWLAWS.ORG,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0230. The Policy provides a remedy only in cases where a complainant proves that the domain name “has been registered and is being used in bad faith”.
...
2009-09-02 - Case Details
In fact not only should his
“passive holding” of the domain name be regarded as sufficient in
light of the decision Telstra Corporation Ltd. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, (WIPO
Case No. ...As regards the use in bad faith of the disputed domain name, apart from the
valid Complainant’s allegation of “passive holding” as set
forth in the landmark decision Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2004-07-21 - Case Details
These circumstances are sufficient to constitute a
prima facie showing by Complainant of absence of rights or legitimate
interest in the disputed domain name on the part of the Respondent, to whom
the evidentiary burden therefore shifts to show by concrete evidence that he
does have rights or legitimate interests in that domain name: Do The Hustle,
LLC v. ...The Respondent relies on the circumstances specified in sub-paragraph 4(c)(i):
“before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services;”
Even perfunctory preparations have been held to suffice
for this purpose: Shirmax Retail Ltd. v. ...
2007-04-04 - Case Details
v) The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. ...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. ...
2019-01-25 - Case Details
iv) The Complainant submits that passively holding the disputed domain name, the Respondent is using it in bad faith.
(v) The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
...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. ...
2019-01-25 - 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 facts of this case are rather similar to those in Emirates Group Headquarters v. Erica Vennum,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0883, involving the domain name . ...
2009-01-29 - Case Details