Respondent is WhoisGuard, Inc., WhoisGuard Protected of Panama / Domink Tamasi of Bay Shore, New York, Republic of Serbia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...- Complainant and its trademark CARREFOUR enjoy a worldwide reputation.
- The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s trademark CARREFOUR in its entirety. The only additional element in the disputed domain name is the Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) suffix “.gift”...
2018-10-29 - Case Details
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 are no other indications that respondent could have registered and used the domain name in question for any non-infringing purpose). See also, Red Bull GmbH v. Harold Gutch,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0766 (finding that respondent’s expected use of the domain name would lead people to believe that the domain name was connected with complainant, and thus is the equivalent to bad faith use).
...
2012-06-25 - Case Details
See e.g. Edmunds.com, Inc. v. Digi Real Estate
Foundation, WIPO Case No. D2006-1043 (“This is clearly a “typosquatting” case where the disputed domain
name is a slight misspelling of a registered trademark to divert Internet traffic. ...This conduct translates into bad faith use of the disputed domain name (see Justice for
Children v. R. neetso / Robert W. O’Steen, WIPO Case No. D2004-0175; Joseph Dello Russo, M.D. v.
...
2022-06-02 - Case Details
Again, in Estée Lauder Inc. v. estelauder.com, estelauder.net and Jeff Hanna,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0869, it was held
that the mere deletion of the second ‘e’ and the accent aigue
from the trademark, when the domain name was created, did not prevent
the domain name from being confusingly similar to the trademark, which it clearly
and intentionally was.
...Briefing .com Inc. v. Cost Net Domain Manager, WIPO
Case No. D2001-0970, is particularly relevant, as it is a case where those
responsible for devising the domain name took a common misspelling of the Complainant’s
trademark, namely ‘ breifing’ for ‘ briefing’ and adopted
the former as the domain name. ...
2004-12-09 - Case Details
Thus, in Bonneterie Cevenole S.A.R.L v. Sanyouhuagong,
WIPO Case No D2001-1309 it was said:
“The Panel is well aware that a number of distinguished Panelists take the view that a bona fide non-commercial criticism site connected to a domain name featuring the trademark of a subject of the criticism is fair use of the domain name for the purposes of the Policy.”
...Finally, the Complainant says that the mere fact that the domain name was registered several years after the trademarks is itself evidence of bad faith and in that regard it relies on the decision in The University of Windsor v. ...
2007-08-27 - Case Details
Respondent is Libin Zhu, France, represented by William Shen, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0003.
For these reasons, the Panel concludes that Respondent has registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.
7. ...
2019-12-20 - Case Details
D2007-0530 and Credit Industriel et Commercial S.A., CM-CIC Securities v. Click Cons. Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1323
Complainant assert that the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are here obviously met; Complainant acknowledges that Respondent has not actively used the domain name but Complainant asserts that there is no possible use of the disputed domain name that is not in bad faith.
...Complainant also cites, Confédération Nationale du Crédit Mutuel v. Mervyn Mould,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0207in order to establish the ineffectiveness of the addition of a dash in order to disassociate the domain name from the registered trademark of Complainant. ...
2010-02-02 - Case Details
See
also International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) v. Tyler Dikman, WIPO Case No. D2025-2376
(finding bad faith where the domain name at issue redirected to a complainant-owned website). ...case=D2025-2376
https://www.wipo.int/en/web/amc/domain-name-disputes/overview/index
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Ramos Terence
Case No. ...
2026-09-24 - Case Details
See William Grant & Sons Ltd. V. Dave Chandler,
WIPO Case No. D2016-0476 (stating "because the Disputed Domain Name resolved to a web page that contains sponsored pay-per–[click] third party links, the Panel concludes that the Respondent is not using the Disputed Domain Name for a legitimate or bona fide purpose.")
...See William Grant & Sons Ltd. V. Dave Chandler, supra (stating "because the Disputed Domain Name resolved to a web page that contains sponsored pay-per–[click] third party links, the Panel concludes that the Respondent is not using the Disputed Domain Name for a legitimate or bona fide purpose.")
...
2017-03-03 - Case Details
The Respondent is Raid Benson of Nigeria.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (“the Domain Name”) is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Panel is of the opinion that those circumstances do indeed constitute a prima facie indication that the Respondent is using the Domain Name in a non bona fide nature.
Finally, the Respondent has failed to respond to the Complaint and has therefore failed to provide any evidence of its rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name (see, e.g., The Great Eastern Life Assurance Company Limited v. ...
2019-02-21 - Case Details
The disputed domain name was also not registered to prevent Complainants from owning a domain name incorporating its trademark. ...In support of that contention, Complainants submitted that the use of domain privacy services was widely recognized as an indication of bad faith in domain name registration, and cited Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. d/b/a Condé Nast Publications v. ...
2012-08-02 - Case Details
Isenberg, Attorney at Law, LLC, U.S.
The Respondent is Shu Lin, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Above.com,
Inc. ...The trademark is fully integrated in the
Disputed Domain Name. The element EQUIFAX stands out in the Disputed Domain Name. There is just
one element in the Disputed Domain Name, which differs from the Complainant’s trademark, namely the
letter “p” is inserted between the “u” and the “i”, so that the Disputed Domain Name reads “equipfax”. ...
2023-01-02 - Case Details
See, e.g., Giorgio Armani S.p.A. Milan Swiss Branch Mendrisio v. wichan poonsawat,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0845. Complainant’s trademark is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name.
...Use of a domain name to lead Internet users to malware constitutes per se bad faith use. See Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. v. ...
2018-07-30 - Case Details
See ESPN, Inc. v. XC2, WIPO Case No.
D2005-0444 (“It is well-settled that the practice of typosquatting, of itself, is evidence of the bad faith
registration of a domain name.”).
...See Myer Stores Limited v. Mr. David John Singh, WIPO Case No. D2001-0763 (respondent’s knowledge of
the registration and use of a trademark prior to registering the domain name constitutes bad faith). ...
2022-04-29 - Case Details
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, 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
The Respondent is 林彦晓 (Yan Xiao Lin), China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd. ...The addition of a gTLD to a disputed domain name does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity as the use of a gTLD is technically required to operate a domain name (see Accor v. ...
2022-01-12 - Case Details
The Complainant’s trademark BRADESCO is obviously confusingly similar to the domain name .
As pointed out in a previous decision – similar to the instant one that involved the same mark – which applies mutatis mutandis here (Banco Bradesco S.A. v. ...As the Panel held in Hoffmann-LaRoche Inc v. WhoisGuard,
WIPO Case No. D2005-1288, “only someone with knowledge of the mark – considering the fact that it is an invented term – could have registered the disputed domain name”. ...
2011-02-14 - Case Details
Respondent is H J Shin of Daegu, Republic of Korea.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (“Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Cydentity, Inc. dba Cypack.com.
3. ...Search, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2001-1319; Trade Me Limited v. Vertical Axis Inc,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0093. Finally, there is no evidence that Respondent is making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name. ...
2010-11-29 - 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.
...
2011-03-10 - Case Details
D2000-0148
(constructive notice found where domain name confusingly similar to complainant’s
mark and mark registered prior to respondent’s domain name); Young Genius
Software AB v. ...D2000-0591 (constructive
notice found where complainant had trademark registration in Sweden and domain
name registration under the .se top-level domain name prior to respondent’s
domain name registration); The Channel Tunnel Group Ltd. v. ...
2001-06-25 - Case Details