The Complainant notes that “[e]ven the absence of use of the disputed domain name amounts to passive holding, i.e. acting in bad faith”, referring to Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...As it is well-reasoned in the case of Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, “inaction […] can, in certain circumstances, constitute a domain name being used in bad faith.” ...
2012-10-04 - Case Details
Respondent is yin jia, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Name.com, Inc. ...Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel
orders that the disputed domain name be transferred to Complainant.
/Phillip V. Marano/
Phillip V. Marano
Sole Panelist
Date: May 9, 2023
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Fremaux Delorme v. yin jia
Case No. ...
2023-05-31 - Case Details
Customer 0133763249 of Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands, Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Toronto, Ontario, Canada, respectively.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Tucows Inc. ...This further evidences that the Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith (see Villeroy & Boch AG v. Whois Data Shield/Hong Kong Names LLC,
WIPO Case No. ...
2013-07-04 - Case Details
Respondent is Xu Xin, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Bizcn.com, Inc.
3. ...The Panel is, in the circumstances, satisfied that the disputed domain name, which does not appear to be in active use, is being passively held in bad faith within the meaning of previous decisions such as, Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2009-02-23 - Case Details
In Guerlain S.A. v. Peikang,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0055, the panel stated that, “in the absence of any license or permission from the Complainant to use any of its trademarks or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating those trademarks, it is clear that no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the domain name could be claimed by Respondent”. ...D2003-0494, etc.
The Respondent registered the Domain Name on July 3, 2011. The mere registration of a domain name does not give the owner a right or a legitimate interest in respect of the domain name.
...
2012-02-20 - Case Details
The Respondent is Unasi Management Inc., of Panama.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is
registered with iHoldings.com Inc. d/b/a DotRegistrar.com.
3. ...D2000-0256; Info Space.com, Inc. v. Registra Administrator Lew Blanck, WIPO Case No. D2000-0069).
5A.5 In conclusion, the Panel is satisfied that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark RED BULL
B. ...
2005-06-27 - Case Details
The Respondent is WhoisGuard, Inc., Panama / Manjunath K, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Previous UDRP decisions have consistently held that the introduction of small typographical changes or deliberate errors does not render Respondent’s domain name less confusingly similar to the core trademark held by the Complainant. See, Dow Jones & Company, Inc. and Dow Jones, L.P. v. ...
2020-08-17 - Case Details
See also Merrell Pharmaceuticals Inc., Aventis Pharma SA v. Filips Kostins,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0943.
Numerous UDRP panel decisions concerning Complainant’s trademark XENICAL have established that the addition of generic terms to Complainant’s trademark in a domain name does not alter the fact that the domain name is confusingly similar to the mark, see e.g. ...See Herbalife International, Inc v. Surinder S. Farmaha,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0765, stating that “the registration of a domain name with the knowledge of the complainant's trademark registration amounts to bad faith”.
...
2010-10-20 - Case Details
D2011-0700, and Fluor Corporation v. KMLOLO,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0377).
In respect to the second condition of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s NESTLÉ trademark in its entirety. ...The addition of the term “mexico” does not prevent or mitigate the confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark, because, as ruled in Arthur Guiness Son & Co. (Dublin) Limited v Dejan Macesic,
WIPO Case No. ...
2015-02-11 - Case Details
The burden of proof then shifts to the respondent to rebut the complainant’s assertion”.
6 See, Microsoft Corporation v. Gioacchino Zerbo,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0644: “It may be inferred that the Respondent did register the domain name in dispute on purpose, to disrupt the Complainant’s business, as it used the domain name with sponsored links to competitors.”; Bartercard Ltd & Bartercard International Pty Ltd. v. ...Under the Policy, both of these are sufficient to show registration and use of the Domain Name in bad faith”; Micro Electronics, Inc. v. J Lee,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0170: “the sole use of the disputed domain name to divert traffic to a site providing sponsored links of various commercial companies is indicative of bad faith”....
2012-01-26 - Case Details
Kommanditgesellschaft v. Beyonet Services and Stephen Urich,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0161). The registration of a domain name comprising two dictionary words cannot in itself constitute bad faith (Megajogos Entretenimentos Ltda. v. ...The Panel notes that there has been little discussion regarding whether figurative elements of a trade mark can be considered confusingly similar to a domain name (see e.g., Megajogos Entretenimentos Ltda. v. Vertical Axis, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2011-2026; Brisbane City Council v. ...
2012-04-25 - Case Details
Keyword Marketing, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2006-1137; Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Aneko Bohner,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0629.
The second disputed domain name, , also includes one of Complainant's widely known trademarks. ...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. ...
2009-08-12 - Case Details
Respondent is Richard Spades of Kincheloe, Michigan, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with SIDN through GoDaddy.com.
3. ...It is established case law under the Regulations that the Top-Level Domain “.nl” may be disregarded in assessing the similarity between the relevant trademark(s) on the one hand, and a disputed domain name on the other (see, inter alia, Pieter de Haan v. ...
2015-12-14 - 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, NET2PHONE INC. v. ...See Alitalia –Linee Aeree Italiane S.p.A. v. Colour Digital,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1260 (finding bad faith where respondent made no use of the domain name in question and there were no other indications that respondent could have registered and used the domain name in question for any non-infringing purpose) and also Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2015-12-18 - Case Details
The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GKG.NET, INC (formerly GK Group LLC).
3. ...- The disputed domain name was never offered for sale to anyone, including the Complainant.
- The Complainant is guilty of reverse domain name hijacking. ...
2007-09-12 - Case Details
It is found that Respondent's use of the Domain Name for this purpose is not bona fide. See, e.g., Carfax, Inc. D/B/A Carfax V. Setyo Djoenaedi & Associates,
WIPO Case No. ...Such an offer demonstrates that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith. See CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. Gaddoor Saidi,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0243 (June 2, 2000) (“Under the Policy, an offer to sell the domain name for valuable consideration in excess of the documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name is not only evidence of, but conclusively establishes that, the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.”).
7. ...
2009-03-03 - Case Details
Scott banner,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0965, where the domain name was held to be confusingly similar to the IBM trademark because many Internet users would assume that the domain name identifies a website from which they can download software supplied by the Complainant; Nintendo of America Inc. v. ...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. ...
2012-07-12 - Case Details
See Microsoft Corporation v. Amit Mehrotra, WIPO D2000-0053.
Thus, the domain name is identical to a trademark in which Complainant Marlyn has rights.
...The panelist in InTest Corporation v. Servicepoint, NAF File No. FA0007000095291, found that "where the domain name has been previously used by the complainant, subsequent registration of the domain name by anyone else indicates bad faith, absent evidence to the contrary".
...
2001-04-24 - Case Details
See also The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs v. Name
Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2017-0501 (“In addition, the disputed domain names … have had their web
hosting suspended as a result of fraudulent activities. ...The Panel further concludes that failure by Respondent to answer Complainant’s cease and desist letter
“suggests that Respondent was aware that it has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain
name, and that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.” See America
Online, Inc. v. ...
2022-04-21 - Case Details
Respondent is Whois Agent, Domain Protection Services, Inc., United States of America (“United States”) / zhiwn nshiz, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Name.com, Inc. ...Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name be transferred to Complainant.
Phillip V. Marano
Sole Panelist
Date: December 1, 2021
1 Please see Fiorucci Holdings Limited v. ...
2021-12-08 - Case Details