See Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1525.
In the present case, the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s registered mark WORLDPAY along with a hyphen and the letters “ng”. The addition of a generic term is not sufficient to dispel confusion with the Complainant’s mark and the use of a hyphen are not enough to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s mark or official domain names. (See, Entertainment Shopping AG v. Nischal Soni, Sonik Technologies,
WIPO Case No. ...
2018-03-29 - Case Details
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
...Inc. v. Mr. Omid Pournazar,
WIPO Case No. D2012-1612; Inter Ikea Systems B. V. v. Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2022-03-03 - Case Details
Respondent is zhang shasha of Zhoukou, Henan, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with 1API GmbH (the “Registrar”).
3. ...There is no evidence in the file to indicate that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. So the Panel concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See World Natural Bodybuilding Federation, Inc. v. ...
2016-09-12 - Case Details
In this context,
the Complainant refers to a case involving the Complainant (Société des Hôtels
Méridien v. LaPorte Holdings, Inc., WIPO
Case No. D2004-0849), in which the panel held that the domain name
(the second letter ‘i’ was missing) was similar
to the trademark LE MERIDIEN in stating that “the first
difference has very little effect on the overall impression made by the Domain
Name, because all other letters are identical, and the difference is in the
final syllable of the Domain Name”.
...It is clear that the Respondent was, at the moment of registering the Domain Name, not commonly known by the Domain Name. Furthermore, before the dispute arose, the Domain Name was not used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. ...
2005-07-08 - Case Details
UDRP decisions have long established that passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith. Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,
WIPO Case No. ...See, e.g.,The Wiggles Touring Pty Ltd v. Thompson Media Pty Ltd,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0124.
For these reasons, Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy.
7. ...
2017-05-01 - Case Details
The Respondent is Gabriella Costa of Aparecida de Goiania, Goiás, Brazil.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Melbourne IT Ltd (the "Registrar").
3. ...The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy" or "UDRP"), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules"), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Supplemental Rules").
...
2014-08-01 - Case Details
Respondent is David Wayne of New York, New York, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Register4Less, Inc. ...Numerous previous UDRP decisions have held that the addition of a generic word does not distinguish a disputed domain name from a complainant’s mark or preclude a finding of confusing similarity. See, e.g., Walmart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2016-09-19 - Case Details
The company was founded on November 19, 1997.
5. The domain name was registered on May 30, 2008.
6. Eurobox Ltd is a domain name proxy service company.
7. ...FA741828; AOL LLC v. Jordan Gerberg, NAF Claim No. 780200.
8 See, for example, Bank of America Corporation v. Azra Khan, NAF Claim No. 124515, finding that the respondent's diversionary use of the domain name to was not a bona fide offering of goods or services, was not noncommercial use, and was not fair use); see also MEDIATIS S.A. v. ...
2009-06-08 - Case Details
Complainants further submit that Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith because it has hindered Complainants’ customers from contacting Complainants. See, SGS Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. v. ...The panel cannot conceive of a situation in which Respondent could use the domain name in dispute in good faith. See, e.g., Jupiters Limited v. Aaron Hall,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0574; Cobham Plc. v. ...
2007-11-01 - Case Details
Sears, Ph.D. v. YY / Yi Yanlin,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0286 (April 26, 2007) (finding the domain name wwwplavix.com confusingly similar to complainant’s PLAVIX trademark); Sanofi-Aventis, Merrell Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. ...Limited,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0026 (March 28, 2007) (finding the domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s CONDE NAST trademark); Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. v. ...
2008-03-06 - Case Details
The Respondent is Mau Lio, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with TurnCommerce, Inc. ...The Respondent’s passive holding or non-use of the disputed domain name does not preclude a finding of bad faith in the attendant circumstances of this case. As set forth in Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2020-05-21 - Case Details
It is well-established that the gTLD used as technical part of a domain name may be disregarded (see Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Andrew Miller,
WIPO Case No. D2008-1345). ...Cameron David Jackson,
WIPO Case No. D2016-0345 in respect of the domain name ; BHP Billiton Innovation Pty Ltd v. Cameron Jackson,
WIPO Case No. D2015-1782, in respect of the domain name , BHP Billiton Innovation Pty Ltd v. ...
2016-12-01 - Case Details
The Respondent is Marketing Total, S.A., of Charlestown, Saint Kitts and Nevis.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with DomainDoorman, LLC.
3. ...The domain name wholly incorporates the CARLISLE mark. The only difference between the domain name and “Carlisle Wide Plank Floors” is substitution of “Flooring” for “Floors”.
...
2007-09-19 - Case Details
D2000-0036 and Sweeps Vacuum & Repair Centre, Inc. v Nett Corp, WIPO Case No. D2001-0031. In the
present case the term “italo” forms a prominent part of each of the .ITALO trademarks and each Disputed
Domain Name includes that term. ...“Passive holding” can itself amount to bad faith
registration and use where the holding involves a domain name deliberately chosen because of its
association with the complainant. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2025-07-04 - Case Details
The Respondent is Föreningen Greenpeace - Norden of Stockholm, Sweden, internally represented.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The domain dames (the “Domain Name”) and (the “Additional Domain Name”) are registered with Active 24 AS and Enom, Inc., respectively (collectively, the “Disputed Domain Names”).
3. ...Of course, it may be that as a consequence of using a different domain name less people will see the criticisms that the registrant wants to make public. However, if this is true, this of itself is evidence of the fact that the misrepresentation inherent in the domain name is the thing that draws people to the site” (Aspis Liv Föräkrings AB v. ...
2012-08-07 - Case Details
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant is the owner of the trademark ROLAND GARROS both by registration and acquired reputation and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark ROLAND GARROS.
Regarding the addition of the generic word “tickets”, the Panel notes that it is now well established that the addition of generic terms to a domain name does not necessarily distinguish the domain name from a trademark (see, e.g., Aventis Pharma SA., Aventis Pharma Deutschland GmbH v. ...The addition of the generic word “tickets” does not therefore prevent the disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
It is also well accepted that a generic Top-Llevel Domain (“gTLD”) suffix, in this case “.com”, may be ignored when assessing the similarity between a trademark and a domain name (see, e.g., VAT Holding AG v Vat.com,
WIPO Case No. ...
2014-01-30 - Case Details
Respondent is Private Registrant, Digital Privacy Corporation, United States / Richard Sheng, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with 101domain, Inc. ...Such activity does not provide rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name under the Policy. See M.F.H. Fejlesztõ Korlátolt Felelõsségû v. Satoshi Shimoshita,
WIPO Case No. ...
2019-09-25 - Case Details
The Respondent is Hong Hee Dong of Daegu, Republic of Korea.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with INames corp. (Korea).
3. ...In this case, the Panel has found that the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s mark, when directly compared, are confusingly similar for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy (see Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. ...
2011-06-03 - Case Details
Six Continent Hotels, Inc. v. The Omnicorp,
WIPO Case No. D2005-1249. Previous UDRP panels have found that use of the CANDLEWOOD Marks plus a geographic term in the domain name, especially a geographic term where the Complainant has a hotel, creates a domain name that is confusingly similar to the CANDLEWOOD Marks. ...Also, the fact that Respondent has provided false contact information in registering the Domain Name is further indicative of bad faith. See Mrs. Eva Padberg v.Eurobox Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1886; and Fifth Third Bancorp v. ...
2015-01-08 - Case Details
Moreover, the Panel is able to presume that the Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, based on the Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complainant’s allegations. See for example, Geocities v. ...As an aside, the factual circumstances in this dispute are different to those in New York Times Company v. Name Administration Inc. (BVI), Supra. Without agreeing with all reasoning in that decision, here, the disputed domain name was registered after the Complainant obtained registered trade mark protection in the United Kingdom and the United States of America, and the Respondent's use of the domain name is not, as discussed above, legitimate. ...
2010-12-16 - Case Details