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”).
...That the addition of the words “eletronicos”, which means “electronics” in Portuguese, adds no distinctiveness to the disputed domain name.
-That where the disputed domain name contains the identical mark combined with a generic word or term, the addition of the generic word or term neither renders the disputed domain name dissimilar from the Complainant’s mark nor removes or dilutes the likely confusion that arises from the disputed domain name.
...
2015-02-11 - Case Details
The Respondent is RegC, Liz Schlumbrecht / Private Registration, 1&1 Internet Inc., United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with 1&1 IONOS Inc. ...Use of the Disputed Domain Name to display advertising links targeted toward the domain name’s meaning as a trademark, is not legitimate. ...
2019-09-25 - Case Details
The Panel finds that the addition of this geographical identifier “nl” does not suffice to distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant’s trademark since “VEOLIA” is the dominant part of the Domain Name. See Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ...The Panel takes into account that Internet users considering the Domain Name without awareness of its content may believe that the Domain Name is in some way connected and associated with Complainant (see Covance, Inc. and Covance Laboratories Ltd. v. ...
2017-01-19 - Case Details
The Respondent is Markisa Mirova, Markisa Miro, Indonesia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Google LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Finally, inactive or passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name by the Respondent may amount to bad faith use. See Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. and Les Publications Condé Nast S.A. v. ...
2021-03-18 - Case Details
The silence of a respondent may support a finding that it has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. See Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc., v. Lauren Raymond,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0007; Ronson Plc v. ...Prior panels deciding under the UDRP have held that such use of a domain name cannot be a “bona fide offering of goods or services” and is not “fair use of the domain name.” ...
2017-12-28 - Case Details
However, the addition of a number, being generic, cannot serve to differentiate a domain name from a complainant’s trademark (see Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences v. 007 Promotions,
WIPO Case No. ...Therefore, the burden of proof shifts to the Respondent to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name (see Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. blue crystal,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0630). As in the present proceeding the Respondent failed to submit a Response – a fact that also speaks for a nonexistence of any right or legitimate interest with respect to the Domain Name (see Spenco Medical Corporation v. ...
2013-01-15 - Case Details
The critical inquiry under the first element of the Policy is whether the mark and domain name, when directly compared, are identical or confusingly similar. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...To the contrary, the Panel considers that the disputed domain name is more likely to be understood as a reference to the Complainant’s products. See Pfizer Inc. v. ...
2010-08-27 - Case Details
Because the NAMECHEAP mark had been used and registered at the time of the disputed domain name
registration by the Respondent, the Panel finds it more likely than not that the Respondent had the
Complainant’s marks in mind when registering the disputed domain name (Tudor Games, Inc. v. ...case=DCO2016-0034
https://www.wipo.int/en/web/amc/domain-name-disputes/overview/index
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Namecheap, Inc. v. Fabiano Venturini
Case No. ...
2026-10-21 - Case Details
The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).
3. ...See Belupo d.d. v. WACHEM d.o.o.,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0110.
In this case, the Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...
2013-01-31 - Case Details
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 in its entirety the Complainant's well-established trademark RACE GLAZE.
The addition of a generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.com” to the disputed domain name does not constitute an element in the domain name so as to avoid confusing similarity. ...
2010-05-14 - Case Details
The Respondent is Wortex Dev, Ukraine.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (“Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...Because
the BDO mark had been widely used and registered at the time of the Domain Name registration by the
Respondent and enjoyed reputation, the Panel finds it more likely than not that the Respondent had
Complainant’s mark in mind when registering the Domain Name (Tudor Games, Inc. v. ...
2025-03-31 - Case Details
This can arise where there is an absence of any explanation which might have had a bearing upon any claim to rights or legitimate interest in the domain name, such as the use of, or preparation to use, the domain name prior to notice of the dispute, being commonly known by the domain name, or making legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name. ...While bad faith can exist where a domain name contains in its entirety a complainant's trademark (Cellular One Group v. Paul Brien,
WIPO Case No. ...
2010-06-09 - Case Details
Indeed the apparent lack of active use under the appropriate circumstances falls within the concept of the domain name being used in bad faith (Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,
WIPO Case No. ...The Complainant has submitted evidence that the Respondent is willing to sell the disputed domain name to the highest bidder. It is well established that registering a domain name for the primary purpose of offering to sell, rent, or otherwise transfer the domain name for an amount in excess of the registration cost is evidence that a domain name was registered and being used in bad faith (adidas-Saloman AG v. ...
2013-02-12 - Case Details
Respondent is Grant Chonko, Genesis Biosciences, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (hereinafter the “Disputed Domain Name”) is
registered with Tucows Inc. ...Additionally, typosquatting is evidence of a lack of rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain
Name. See Redbox Automated Retail, LLC d/b/a Redbox v. Milen Radumilo, WIPO Case No. D2019-1600.
...
2022-04-22 - Case Details
It is well-established that the gTLD used as part of a domain name is generally disregarded unless the gTLD takes on special significance where it has relevance to the analysis (see Autodesk v. ...On any objective view, the Respondent is not a reseller with a legitimate interest in a domain name incorporating a manufacturer’s mark, such that it could meet the tests set out in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ...
2021-12-03 - Case Details
Complainant identifies one minor difference between the disputed domain name and its trademark, corporate name, and the domain name used by Complainant. That one difference is that the disputed domain name is misspelled; the disputed domain name is missing an “e” in “pneumatic”. ...In Sanofi-aventis v. Standard Tactics LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1909, the panel, when presented with a consent to transfer the domain name, ordered the transfer of the domain name but declined to do so without independently investigating complainant’s proof. ...
2008-04-14 - Case Details
The Respondent is Ceming Lin of Lishui, Zhejiang, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...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. ...
2019-03-19 - Case Details
Third, the Panel finds, similarly to other UDRP panels, that the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” to the Disputed Domain Name does not constitute an element so as to avoid confusing similarity (see, e.g., Volkswagen AG v. ...In addition, the Panel finds that the Respondent, Pham Dinh Nhut, in three years between 2014 and 2017, involves in more than 10 cases of domain name disputes, namely Kurt Geiger Limited v. Vietnam Domain Privacy Services / Pham Dinh Nhut,
WIPO Case No. ...
2017-05-24 - Case Details
The Respondent is Ana Peter, Italy.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with WEDOS Internet, a.s.
...If the relevant mark is recognizable in the disputed domain name, the addition of
other terms will not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element (see WIPO Overview 3.0,
section 1.8; see Fashion Nova v. ...
2023-03-13 - Case Details
FA 0094637; David G. Cook v. This
Domain is For Sale, NAF Case No. FA0094957 and Gorstew Jamaica and
Unique Vacations, Inc. v. ...The Registration Agreement contemplates such a
situation arising and provides in paragraph 10:
"AGENCY. Should you intend to license use of a domain name to a
third party you shall nonetheless be the domain name holder of record…
You shall accept liability for harm caused by wrongful use of the domain
name. ...
2002-05-28 - Case Details