The Complainant has submitted evidence showing that the disputed domain name resolved to a website
containing pornographic content. It is well-established that the use of a domain name that corresponds to
another’s mark, for posting of pornographic content and/or related services, may constitute evidence of bad
faith registration and use of a domain name (see Coral Trademarks, Ltd. v. ...D2000-1295 (“The posting of pornographic contents on a web site under a domain name that
corresponds to a third party’s mark is a bad faith use of a domain name”); America Online, Inc. v. ...
2022-05-06 - Case Details
Some have held, either effectively or directly, that respondents need do nothing if the complainant does not furnish affirmative proof that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name at issue. VereSign, Inc. v. VeneSign, C.A.ICANN Case No. D2000-0303; Gassen Diamonds B.V. v. ...Some have held that the burden on the complainant is a "relatively light" one as regards proof of 4(a)(ii). Educational Testing Service v. Netkorea Co., ICANN Case No. D2000-0087 ("It is relatively difficult for any complainant to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. ...
2000-08-23 - Case Details
The Respondent is Jennifer Naranjo, SportsFoot, Colombia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Hostinger Operations, UAB (the
“Registrar”).
3. ...The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer
of the disputed domain name.
According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s trademark
MICHELIN in its entirety, which previous panels have considered to be “well known” or “famous” (Compagnie
Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. ...
2024-09-20 - Case Details
See Kinko's, Inc. v. eToll,
Inc., No. FA94447 (Nat'l Arb. Forum, May 27, 2000) (respondent had no rights
or legitimate interest in domain name which it registered "for the ultimate
use of the Complainant"); Nike Inc. v. ...D2000-0108 (WIPO, May 2, 2000) (developer of "in-depth virtual and on-line
marketing concept" that registered domain name in its own name did so "for an
on behalf of the Complainant" and had no rights or legitimate interest in domain
name), D; Fishtech, Inc. v. ...
2001-06-19 - Case Details
Scope of the Policy
The Policy is addressed to resolving disputes concerning allegations of abusive domain name registration and use. Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation v. Bay Verte Machinery, Inc. d/b/a The Power Tool Store,
WIPO Case No. ...See 201 Folsom Option JV, L.P. and 201 Folsom Acquisition, L.P. v. John Kirkpatrick,
WIPO Case No. D2014-1359 (Oki Data approach considers and applies nominative fair use principles with reference to the limited scope of the Policy, and specifically with respect to the respondent's use of the complainant's mark in a domain name); Project Management Institute v. ...
2016-11-23 - Case Details
The lack of active use of a domain name does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith (see Arla Foods Amba v. Joan P Evans,
WIPO Case No. ...As held by previous UDRP panels, the use of an email address associated with the disputed domain name, to send a phishing email for the purposes of dishonest activity is in itself evidence that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith (see Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. v. ...
2021-06-10 - Case Details
The disputed domain name was registered on June 26, 2023, and the disputed domain
name was registered on June 28, 2023. ...In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith conduct,
insofar as it has registered, in addition to the disputed domain names in this instance, at least one other
domain name which has been found to be an abusive registration (see British American Tobacco (Brands)
Limited v. ...
2023-09-13 - Case Details
The existence of a confusing similarity within the meaning of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is not in doubt in the present case, given that the main element in the disputed domain name, i.e., "berlitz", is identical to Complainant's trademark BERLITZ. The integral incorporation of one or more trademarks into a domain name is typically sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark (RapidShare AG, Christian Schmid v. ...Indeed, the addition of merely generic wording to a trademark in a domain name is insufficient in itself to avoid a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the UDRP (Ansell Healthcare Products Inc. v. ...
2015-11-06 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have found that the mere fact that the disputed domain name resolves to a pay-per-click website is not of itself evidence of rights or legitimate interests arising from a bona fide offering of goods or services (see for example Compart AG v. ...Prior UDRP panel decisions also support this conclusion. See Edmunds.com, Inc. v. Ult. Search, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2001-1319 (“registration and use of a domain name to redirect Internet users to websites of competing organizations constitutes bad faith registration and use under the Policy.”); Netwizards, Inc. v. ...
2015-09-21 - Case Details
The Respondent is Domain Purchase, NOLDC, Inc., of New Orleans, Louisiana,
United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Intercosmos
Media Group d/b/a directNIC.com.
3. ...As to confusing similarity, whereas numerous panels
have found that a domain name that wholly incorporates a complainant’s
registered mark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for the
purposes of the Policy – see for example Nokia Group v. ...
2006-11-01 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks. In particular, the trademark CAT is wholly incorporated in the disputed domain name. ...These trademarks predate the creation date of the disputed domain name which is August 29, 2018.
Many UDRP panels have found that a domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark where the domain name incorporates the complainant’s trademark in its entirety (e.g., F. ...
2019-03-08 - Case Details
D2004-0896; and, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. v. XC2,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0944.
WIPO Case No. D2004-0896 involved a finding against Respondent in relation to no less than 78 domain names.”
4.8 At least recently the web page operating from the Domain Name has borne all the signs of having been created by the Registrar's domain name “parking” and “pay per click” service. ...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. ...
2009-12-16 - Case Details
The Respondent is Brainman Wiaslova of Amherst, Massachusetts, United States of America and Protected Domain Services of Denver, Colorado, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Spot Domain LLC dba Domainsite.com.
3. ...DES2009-0018; and bwin Interactive Entertainment AG v. qushaobing,
WIPO Case No. D2011-0090).
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on October 7, 2009. ...
2011-07-25 - Case Details
See Geocities v. Geociites.com,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0326, finding that
the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name because
the Respondent never submitted a Response or provided the Panel with evidence
to suggest otherwise, and, Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. ...John Zuccarini, WIPO Case No.
D2001-0184. See also Kmart v. Kahn, FA 127708 (National Arbitration
Forum November 22, 2002), finding that if the Respondent profits from its diversionary
use of the Complainant's mark when the domain name resolves to commercial websites
and the Respondent fails to contest the Complaint, it may be concluded that
the Respondent is using the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy paragraph
4(b)(iv), and State Fair of Texas v. ...
2003-10-16 - Case Details
Such use does not confer in the Panel’s view rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See also Red Bull GmbH v. Above.com Domain Privacy / Shu Lin,
WIPO Case No. D2016-1121.
Furthermore, at the date of this decision, the disputed domain name is used to host a parked page comprising pay-per-click (“PPC”) links to competing services. ...In this Panel’s view, such use does not confer rights or legitimate interests to the Respondent. For a similar finding see F5 Networks, Inc. v. Domain Administrator, c/o Whois Watchdog,
WIPO Case No. D2016-0043.
Also, there is no evidence indicating that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, or the name “europ-assistance”. ...
2019-11-25 - Case Details
The Domain Name and Registrar
2.1 The disputed domain name (the "Disputed Domain Name") is registered with Domain.com, LLC (the "Registrar").
3. ...See Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0429. In addition, the Complainant alludes to the addition of the generic descriptive term "market" to the Disputed Domain Name and asserts that this addition only goes to further increase the confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant's trademark, considering that such term is closely linked and associated with the Complainant's brand and trademark. ...
2016-07-11 - Case Details
Respondent is Gail Nick of Rockwall, Texas, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. ...This too constitutes bad faith. AutoScout24 Deutschland GmbH v. Mark Marchese,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0777.
Certainly the combination of a domain name featuring Complainant's mark with a website that is intended to confuse consumers into believing that they have reached Complainant's website, equals bad faith use and registration of the domain name. ...
2009-07-27 - Case Details
Dublin) Limited v. Tim Healy/BOSTH,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0026 (finding confusing similarity where the domain name contains the identical mark of the complainant combined with a generic word or term); see also, Sony Kabushiki Kaisha (also trading as Sony Corporation) v. ...See Pharmacia & Upjohn AB v. Dario H. Romero,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1273 (finding no rights or legitimate interests where respondent failed to submit a response to the complaint and made no use of the domain name in question); see also Melbourne IT Limited v. ...
2017-08-30 - Case Details
Moreover, even if an exclamation point were permitted, its absence would not sufficiently differentiate the Complainant's mark from the Disputed Domain Name. See Brett Habenicht v. Plantation Coffee Roasters, Inc., WIPOCase No. D2003-0770 (since "javajava" in the domain name differs from the Complainant's trademark JAVA! ...Third, the addition of the capital city "berlin" does not diminish, but rather adds to the confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant's IC! BERLIN Marks. See Gannett Co., Inc. v. Henry Chan,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0117 (a domain name incorporating a well-known trademark combined with a geographically descriptive term is confusingly similar to the trademark); Inter-IKEA Systems B.V. v. ...
2014-06-17 - Case Details
As established by prior UDRP decisions, the applicable test is “confined to a consideration of the disputed domain name and the trademark”. The Boucher Group, Inc. v. Nevis Domains LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2006-1463 (citing America Online, Inc. v. ...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. ...
2011-04-05 - Case Details