As to whether the Respondent had used the disputed domain name before such notice, it is common ground that the disputed domain name had been registered in 1997. ...See Hollywood Casino Corporation v. Go Call Inc., NAF case FA0009000095471:
"using the Complainant’s mark to divert internet traffic to an alternative site is not a legitimate, bona fide, or noncommercial use of the domain name".
...
2001-01-24 - Case Details
The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Address
Creation.
3. ...See
eBay Inc. v. Sunho Hong, WIPO
Case No. D2000-1633, wherein a Panel stated that use of complainant’s
entire mark in an infringing domain name makes it difficult to infer a legitimate
use. ...
2006-06-05 - Case Details
Respondent is fs grge, bhv, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”).
3. ...case=D2024-3829
https://www.wipo.int/en/web/amc/domain-name-disputes/overview/index
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
First Hawk Street LLC v. fs grge, bhv
Case No. ...
2026-08-27 - Case Details
The Domain Name and Registrar
2.1 The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Internet.bs Corp (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. ...
2010-03-02 - Case Details
The Respondent is Anonymize, Inc., United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Epik, Inc. (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Since then, the Complainant has obtained dozens of registrations for the Mark in other national jurisdictions. Tommy Bahama Group, Inc. v. RaeAnna Reynolds,
WIPO Case No. D2020-2838.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on August 14, 2020. ...
2021-12-02 - Case Details
D2001-1044; Sweeps Vacuum & Repair Center, Inc. v. Nett Corp.,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0031.
However, that domain name must have been registered because of its attraction as a dictionary word or combination of descriptive terms, and not because of any value corresponding to a trademark; the use of the domain name must also be consistent with its attraction as dictionary words or descriptive terms. ...D2007-0062. See Witmer Public Safety Group, Inc. v. Kwang pyo Kim,
WIPO Case No. D2011-0075 (finding use of Respondent’s domain name was bona fide, citing, inter alia, Metro Sportswear Limited (trading as Canada Goose) v. ...
2014-04-30 - Case Details
a) Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark CHATROULETTE.
The Complainant holds that the comparison should be made between only the second-level portion of the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark (Rollerblae, Inc. v. ...Past UDRP panels have consistently held that a respondent’s use of a confusingly similar domain name to direct unsuspecting Internet users to adult content, as here, is evidence of bad faith registration and use of that domain name (see also Microsoft Corp. v. ...
2017-05-12 - Case Details
The addition of the “www” prefix to the Respondent’s Domain
Name, , does not sufficiently distinguish the Domain
Name from the Complainant’s mark (See, Reuters Limited v. ...D2000-0441;
World Wrestling Federation Entertainment, Inc. v. Matthew Bessette, WIPO
Case No.D2000-0256). Moreover, as previous UDRP decisions have repeatedly
stated the addition of the generic top-level domain to the end of the domain
name does not diminish the confusingly similar nature of the Domain Name at
issue (See, Bang & Olufsen a/s v. ...
2006-02-06 - Case Details
Identical or Confusingly Similar
As far as the first of these elements is concerned, the Panel finds that the Complainant is the owner of the trademarks AIDA and DAS CLUBSCHIFF both by registration and acquired reputation and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the first of these trademarks.
It is well accepted that a top-level domain, in this case “.com”, is to be ignored when assessing identity of mark and domain name (see, e.g., VAT Holding AG v. ...D2003-0038; Orix Kabushiki Kaisha v. Noldc Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0422).
The Complainant has therefore met the burden of proving that the domain name at issue is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2008-12-15 - Case Details
V. G.A.B. ENTERPRISES,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0416).
The Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...The Complainant further argues that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith with full knowledge of the Complainant's rights in the famous MARLBORO trademarks (Philip Morris USA Inc. v. ...
2017-01-13 - Case Details
D2006-0597). In fact, in doing so the disputed domain name keeps the same general appearance and sound as the trademark, remaining confusingly similar to the registered mark (see e.g., The Schneider Group, Inc. v. Jack Mann,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0448; and VeriSign Inc. v. Bin g Glu / G Design,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0421).
Under these circumstances, the Panel finds that the additions fail to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s mark, and the disputed domain name is confusingly similar under Policy paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2011-08-15 - Case Details
It is
well established that the addition of a common generic term to an established
trademark in a domain name does not create a new trademark or avoid confusion.
America Online, Inc., v. Yeteck Communication, Inc., WIPO
Case No. ...Ticketmaster Corporation v. Amjad Kausar,
WIPO Case No. D2002-1018 (December 18, 2002).
Finally, the lack of a response to the Complaint creates an inference that
the Respondent could not provide any good faith use of the disputed domain name.
...
2004-04-20 - Case Details
Customer 1246084445, Canada / Thu Ha Bui, Viet Nam.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (“Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Google LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The difference between the Disputed Domain Name and the trademark is the addition of the suffix “group”. The Panel finds, similarly to other UDRP panels, that the addition of the gTLD “.page” to the Disputed Domain Name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity with the Complainant’s trademark for the purposes of the Policy (see, e.g., Volkswagen AG v. ...
2020-05-13 - Case Details
Respondent is Musa, Hector of Benin, Nigeria.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Complainant must prove on the balance of probabilities both that the Disputed Domain Name was registered in bad faith and that it is being used in bad faith (See, e.g., Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2017-04-11 - Case Details
Therefore, Respondent is not making a bona fide use of the Disputed Domain Name. See WIPO
Overview 3.0, section 2.9; see also Legacy Health System v. Nijat Hassanov, WIPO Case No. ...As such, Respondent
registered the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. See Veuve Cliquot Ponsardin, Maison Fondee en 1772
v. The Polygenix Group Co., WIPO Case No. ...
2022-06-27 - Case Details
Fourth, the Respondent has listed
page 3
the disputed domain name for sale at a domain name sales platform, which demonstrates its lack of
legitimate rights and interests in the disputed domain name.
...Fourth, the
Respondent has listed the disputed domain name for sale at a domain name sales platform, which
demonstrates its lack of legitimate rights and interests in the disputed domain name. ...
2023-03-24 - Case Details
The Panel has also taken into consideration the facts that the websites at the disputed domain name includes Latin characters “clarks” and English words “shoes”, “outlet” and “sale” (Compagnie Gervais Danone v. ...This does not seem to eliminate the identity or at least the similarity between Complainant’s registered trademark and the disputed domain name.
Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that a domain name may be identical or confusingly similar to a trademark for purposes of the Policy “when the domain name includes the trade mark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2014-11-17 - Case Details
The Respondent is Roneo Chithran of Trivandrum, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the "Registrar").
3. ...The Complainant holds numerous word trademarks throughout the world consisting DNATA, and the disputed domain name is .
UDRP panels widely agree that incorporating a trademark into a domain name can be sufficient to establish that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark for purpose of the Policy (see, e.g., Uniroyal Engineered Products, Inc. v. ...
2015-10-16 - Case Details
Applying the principles developed and now broadly accepted under the Policy, the Panel disregards as trivial both the hyphenation and the gTLD and treats the added word “shoes” as having no distinguishing value. The Panel finds that the disputed domain is confusingly similar to the trade mark (see Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0429, finding that the top level of the domain name may not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar; see also Isleworth Land Company v. ...Bill Rodger,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0126, finding the domain name confusingly similar to complainant’s SUTTON trademark because the addition of the descriptive term, “promo”, being an obvious abbreviation of the word “promotion”, did nothing to distinguish the domain name from the trademark; see further Luby’s Fuddruckers Restaurants, LLC. v. ...
2012-12-20 - Case Details
It is also established that the addition of generic terms to the disputed domain name has little, if any, effect on a determination of confusing similarity between the domain name and the mark (Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. ...There can be no legitimate interest in the sale of counterfeits (Lilly ICOS LLC v. Dan Eccles,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0750).
The Respondent has failed to show that it has acquired any trade mark rights in respect of the disputed domain name or that the disputed domain name is used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
...
2010-11-29 - Case Details