D2013-1583).
(ii) The domain name is a coined name which is neither descriptive nor generic and solely used to designate the complainant’s business (Statoil ASA v. ...Aaron Hall, supra; Statoil ASA v. Daniel MacIntyre, Ethical Island, supra).
(iv) The respondent has failed to explain as to why the domain name was chosen (Jupiters Limited v. ...
2016-11-25 - 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 VERIZON mark. ...Furthermore, the Disputed Domain Name includes the entire VERIZON mark. This also supports a finding of bad faith. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2012-04-13 - Case Details
Compagnie Gervais Danone v. Bethesda Properties LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1451 regarding the domain name ; Compagnie Gervais Danone v. Christopher Koda,
WIPO Case No. D2008-1639, regarding the domain name ; Compagnie Gervais Danone v. Edward Brooks,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0330 regarding the domain name ; Compagnie Gervais Danone v. ...
2010-10-27 - Case Details
As regards bad faith use, Complainant demonstrated that the Domain Name led at the time of filing of the Complaint to an inactive website. The non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith (Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...This is a clear indication that the Domain Name is being used in bad faith (Pfizer Inc. v. jg a/k/a Josh Green,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0784; F. ...
2019-10-03 - Case Details
See, Ansell Healthcare Products Inc. v. Australian Therapeutics Supplies Ply, Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0110 (“The incorporation of a Complainant's well-known trademark in the registered domain name is considered sufficient to find the domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark”) and Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. ...The Respondent has never been known by the disputed domain name and has no legitimate interest in the SWAROVSKI Marks or the name “Swarovski”. See Marriott International, Inc. v. ...
2012-02-29 - Case Details
See Lockheed Martin
Corporation. v. Dan Parisi, WIPO Case
No. D2000-1015; The Salvation Army v. Info-Bahn, Inc., WIPO
Case No. D2001-0463. 1
The disputed domain name contains no additional terms that would distinguish
it from the Complainant’s service marks, and for this reason the Panel
concludes that persons viewing the disputed domain name likely would think that
the domain name is in some way connected to the Complainant. ...See, Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. Under Telstra,
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. ...
2005-07-14 - Case Details
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. ...D2000-0163 and Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Samuel Teodorek,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1814).
The Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name is apparently for domain monetization unconnected with any bona fide supply of goods or services by the Respondent. ...
2011-10-06 - Case Details
The Respondent is Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, Panama.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “disputed domain name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” to the disputed domain name is without legal significance for the purpose of assessing confusing similarity (see SAP SE v. ...
2019-06-20 - Case Details
It is well established that a respondent has a right to register and use a domain name to attract Internet traffic based solely on the appeal of a commonly used descriptive phrase, even where the domain name is confusingly similar to the registered mark of a complainant (see National Trust for Historic Preservation v. ...see Match.com, LP v. Bill Zag and NWLAWS.ORG,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0230).
Paragraph 2 of the Policy clearly states: “It is your [domain-name holder’s] responsibility to determine whether your domain name registration infringes or violates someone else’s rights”. ...
2011-12-29 - Case Details
D2005-0517; and PepsiCo, Inc. v. Domain Admin,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0435).
Consequently, the Panel finds that the incorporation of the VALERO and the VALERO ENERGY trademarks in their entirety as part of the Domain Name is an indication that the Respondent registered the Domain Name in order to unfairly benefit from the Complainants’ trademarks.
...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. ...
2015-09-15 - Case Details
D2002-0002, and Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha d/b/a Toyota Motor Corporation v. S&S Enterprises Ltd,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0802.
The addition of generic terms (e.g. “trading”) to a trademark, within a domain name, does not add distinctiveness to said name, and does not alter the fact that such domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark (See Bank of America v. ...It is clear to this Panel that Respondent has used the domain name at hand as a tool for phishing. See National Association of Software and Service Companies v. ...
2009-04-23 - 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 country code top level domain, the disputed domain name consists of the Complainant's trademark FOX and the suffix “tv”. ...
2009-12-29 - Case Details
As referenced by the Complainant, UDRP panels have considered NOVOTEL to be well known or even famous (Accor v. Shinwute K.,supra; Accor v. Value-Domain, Inc.,supra; Accor v. ji kai jun, supra).
The issue of whether a domain name is confusingly similar to a mark is determined through a direct comparison of the mark and the domain name (Group Kaitu, LLC, Darkside Productions, Inc. v. NetDirect,
WIPO Case No. D2011-0220). When a domain name incorporates a distinctive mark in its entirety, it creates sufficient similarity between the mark and the domain name to render it confusingly similar (EAuto, L.L.C. v. ...
2016-02-17 - Case Details
See Annex 8. Case law holds that merely “parking” a domain name does not establish any right or legitimate interest in the domain name by Respondent. See VeriSign Inc. v. ...Case law holds that merely “parking” a domain name does not establish any right or legitimate interest in the domain name by the Respondent. See VeriSign Inc. v. ...
2011-08-10 - Case Details
BDC Partners, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2006-1003; Archipelago Holdings LLC v. Creative Genius Domain Sales and Robert Aragon d/b/a/ Creative Genius Domain Name Sales,
WIPO Case No. ...the Panel concludes that the Respondent's passive holding of the disputed domain name satisfies the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, that the disputed domain name "is being used in bad faith" (see Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. ...
2015-11-16 - Case Details
AltaVista Company v. Mr. James A. Maggs, NAF Case No. FA 0095545 (2000).
There is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name, that Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use Complainant’s service mark in the Domain Name or that Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name. ...John Zuccarini d/b/a Music Wave and the Domain Name RaveClub Berlin,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0440; America Online, Inc. v. Anson Chan,
WIPO Case No. ...
2007-07-10 - Case Details
Given the virtual identity between Complainant’s PEPSICO mark and the domain
name at issue likelihood of confusion must be presumed. Chernow Communications,
Inc. v. Jonathan D. ...In Panavision Int’l, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1998) the Ninth Circuit stated that "A customer who is unsure about a company’s domain name will often guess that the domain name is also the company’s name…....
2002-08-16 - Case Details
D2004-0482; Dolce & Gabbana s.p.a. v. Victory,
WIPO Case No. D2001-1174.
Turning to whether the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the DOLCE & GABBANA trademark, the Panel observes that the Disputed Domain Name comprises: (a) an exact reproduction of the word elements of Complainant’s trademark DOLCE & GABBANA; (b) hyphenated; and (c) followed by the top level domain suffix “.com” all in one continuous domain name.
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. ...
2012-12-11 - Case Details
Such use does not of itself give rise to the Respondent having any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. (See Mr. Olympia, LLC, American Media Operations, Inc., International Federation of BodyBuilders v. ...Evidence provided by the Complainant shows that use of the disputed domain name is commercial, and that it constitutes an intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers (See Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. ...
2011-06-27 - Case Details
Eric Langlois,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0067).
Therefore, the disputed domain name is likely to be associated by the public to the Complainant and its activities (see Carrefour v. ...D2012-0080; Hermes International v. Fuzhoudongchen Tech Inc,
WIPO Case No. D2011-0542).
The addition of the ccTLD “.co” to the disputed domain name is a technical requirement of the Domain Name System (DNS), and therefore has no legal significance (see section 1.11. of the WIPO Overview 3.0; see also CARACOLITO S SAS v. ...
2021-02-11 - Case Details