The Complainant was found to have rights in the trademark B & Q, as translated into the domain name in B & Q plc v Milan Kovac,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1420.
In DRS 04478 for the domain name , it was found that the Complainant has rights for the purpose of the DRS Policy in the term “bandq” “specifically in relation to domain names and Internet services, and because of its use of domain name bandq.com, bandq.biz, bandq.info, bandq.net, bandq.org, bandq.plc.uk, bandq.com.sg, bandq.com.tw, and bandq.com.vn and its previous registration of the name bandq.co.uk” (the domain name is now registered to and used by the Complainant).
...The use of the disputed domain name to access a home page that contains several links to the Complainant’s competitors, most probably pay-per-click links, does not provide a legitimate interest in that domain name under the Policy (see among others, Express Scripts, Inc. v. ...
2013-08-19 - Case Details
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”).
...Accordingly the Panel will order the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant. This is clearly the most expeditious course. See also Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. ...
2010-09-03 - Case Details
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), 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”).
...IPSOS New Media Research SRL,
WIPO Case No. DRO2006-0004; Dell Inc. v. C.I.T. GRUP SRL,
WIPO Case No. DRO2007-0007. The registration agreement language was, at least until 2006, simultaneously English and Romanian, so the domain name applicant has accepted the use of both languages (the disputed domain name was registered in 2003).
4. ...
2008-04-01 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is the only passively held domain name that does not display this message, instead displaying a "403 Forbidden" error when the domain name is entered into a browser. ...RAINBOW BAG COMPANY, NAF Claim No. 1226144. Mere registration of a domain name does not generate rights or legitimate interests in and of itself. See LEGO Juris A/S v. Zhijun Guo,
WIPO Case No. ...
2012-03-05 - Case Details
Therefore the Panel finds it more likely than not that Respondent had Complainant’s mark in
mind when registering the Domain Name (Tudor Games, Inc. v. Domain Hostmaster, Customer ID
No. 09382953107339 dba Whois Privacy Services Pty Ltd / Domain Administrator, Vertical Axis Inc., WIPO
Case No. ...Last, the Panel considers the apparent initial concealment of the Domain Name holder’s identity through use
of a privacy shield at the time of filing the Complaint, all to be further indicative of bad faith (BHP Billiton
Innovation Pty Ltd v. ...
2023-12-12 - 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 also Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union
Corp., WIPO Case No. D2000-0020. Once
a complainant makes a prima facie showing that a respondent lacks rights
to the domain name at issue, the respondent must come forward with proof that
it has some legitimate interest in the domain name to rebut this presumption.
...
2005-12-06 - Case Details
The Panel finds that the main part of the disputed domain name is the KHADI mark. Although the word “Asmi” has been added to the mark KHADI, the trademark is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name. ...Lanificio Ermenegildo Zegna & Figli S.p.A. Ermenegildo Zegna Corporation v. Mr. Lian Ming,
WIPO Case No. DWS2003-0001.
The Panel, in these facts, observes that the Respondent had registered the disputed domain name for the sole purpose of misleading the consumers. ...
2021-12-13 - Case Details
See Facebook Inc. v. Private Registration / Denis Khakimov,
WIPO Case No. DUA2019-0002. The second level domain of the disputed domain name consists solely of the Complainant’s TIK TOK trademark, resulting in a domain name that is identical to the Complainant’s TIK TOK trademark and thus meeting the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the .UA Policy. ...Michael Kors (Switzerland) International GmbH. v. Minakova Maria,
WIPO Case No. DUA2020-0002.
The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, which evinces a lack of rights or legitimate interests.
...
2020-09-01 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark VOLKSWAGEN.
Moreover, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name since it has not been authorized by the Complainant to register the disputed domain name or to use its trademark within the disputed domain name, nor is the Respondent commonly known by the disputed domain name.
...The addition of the word "karriere" and the geographical abbreviation "de" 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-Level Domain ("gTLD") suffix, in this case ".info", may be ignored when assessing the similarity between a trademark and a domain name (see, e.g., VAT Holding AG v. ...
2015-11-26 - Case Details
The Respondent is Bill Greer of Carson, Virginia, USA.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...It is well established that the addition of the gTLD “.com” is typically without legal significance when comparing the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s trademark. See Guccio Gucci S.p.A. v. Brenda Hawkins,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0603; Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...
2017-03-27 - Case Details
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant is the owner of the trademark CICCIOBELLO both by registration and acquired reputation and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark CICCIOBELLO.
It is well accepted that a top-level domain, in this case “.com”, may be ignored when assessing identity of a mark and domain name (see, e.g., VAT Holding AG v. ...By incorporating the Complainant’s widely known trademark in the disputed domain name, the Respondent is therefore intentionally attempting to make commercial gain by either selling the disputed domain name or by diverting Internet users to other websites (see, e.g., Pfizer, Inc. v. ...
2011-01-05 - Case Details
The Respondent:
Universal Internet Technologies, Inc., Bloomsbury, London, WC1E 7QF, United Kingdom.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The domain name in issue is (hereafter "the domain name").
...See id; see also eBay Inc. v. Sunho Houg, WIPO
Case No. D2000-1633 at § 6 (January 18, 2001) (use of complainant’s
entire mark in disputed domain name makes it difficult to infer a legitimate
use. ...
2002-09-03 - Case Details
The Panel notes that the general rule established by panels is that a subsequent acquirer of a domain name is held to have “registered” that domain name for purposes of the Policy as of the date of acquisition of the registration rights (see Ticketmaster Corporation v. Global Access,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1921; HSBC Finance Corporation v. Clear Blue Sky Inc. and Domain Manager,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0062 (“[T]he transfer of a domain name to a third party does amount to a new registration, requiring the issue of bad faith registration to be determined at the time the current registrant took possession of the domain name.”). ...
2008-11-19 - Case Details
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 UDRP Policy (see, e.g., Uniroyal Engineered Products, Inc. v. ...Examples of circumstances that can indicate bad faith include a complainant having a well-known trademark, no response to the complaint, concealment of identity and the impossibility of conceiving a good faith use of the domain name (see Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0003; Jupiters Limited v. ...
2016-11-21 - Case Details
See WIPO Overview 3.0, section
1.9; See also Allstate Insurance Company v. Rakshita Mercantile Private Limited, WIPO Case No.
D2011-0280. Complainant’s registered CORNING Mark is incorporated into and remains recognizable in the
disputed domain name, followed only by the Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) “.com”. ...See, e.g., Screening Eagle Technologies AG v. James Rich, Company Limited, WIPO
Case No. D2020-2057.
Third, while the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website, Complainant provided
evidence that an email address has been created in association with the disputed domain name
“[…]@comlng.com” and it is likely being used as an email address in furtherance of a f raudulent scheme.
...
2023-11-08 - Case Details
Corp. v. Laurent D. Morel, WIPO
Case No. D2002-0215 (the “neutral” addition of “girls”
in the Domain Name was a difference insufficient to
avoid confusion with registered mark); Sony Corp. v. ...The passive holding of a Domain Name has been
held to evidence bad faith use of the names where there are other factors. Telstra
Corp. v. ...
2006-09-18 - Case Details
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. See Janus
Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, WIPO Case No. D2002-0201.
The Panel f inds the entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. ...See Valero Energy Corporation and Valero Marketing and
Supply Company v. Valero Energy, WIPO Case No. D2017-0075.
Complainant’s evidence submitted clearly suggests the false pretense that the disputed domain name
creates, that you will find Complainant, the trademark owner, at the other end of the disputed domain name.
...
2023-10-16 - Case Details
The Panelist finds that domain name at issue is either identical (Hewlett-Packard
Company v. Cupcake City, NAF Case No. NAF0002000093562; America Online,
Inc. v. ...D2000-0441; and News Group Newspapers Limited and News Network
Limited v. Momm Amed la, WIPO Case No.
D2000-1623.
7. Decision
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Panelist decides that the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks and service marks in which the Complainant has rights, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name, and that the Respondent’s domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2001-09-25 - Case Details
Given the incorporation of a famous mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...- the Respondent has provided no evidence whatsoever of any actual or contemplated good faith use by it of the disputed domain name as per paragraph 4(b) of the Policy.
- the well-known character of the ARCELORMITTAL trademark – as held for example in Arcelormittal (SA) v. ...
2020-03-13 - Case Details
Registration of the domain name in issue prevents the use of the FIRST MAGNUS FINANCIAL trademark as a domain name by the Complainant.
...As described by the panelist in Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu v. Henry Chan,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0584, such websites
offer a revenue program which pays domain name owners (in the particular case)
“50% of all revenues generated from searches, popunders, popups, and exit
popups” in respect of users directed to its website through the participants
domain name.
...
2007-01-05 - Case Details