See, e.g., Gateway, Inc. v. Domaincar,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0604 (finding the domain name confusingly similar to the trademark GATEWAY because the domain name contained “the central element of the Complainant’s GATEWAY marks, plus the descriptive word for the line of goods and services in which the Complainant conducts its business”).
...See Expedia, Inc. v. European Travel Network,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0137 (finding bad faith where the respondent registered the domain name after the complainant established rights and publicity in the complainant’s trademarks).
...
2015-03-18 - Case Details
The Respondent is Lin Zhibin, FRY, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Consequently, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly
similar to the Complainant’s GURHAN mark. See Zacks Investment Research, Inc. v. ...
2022-12-29 - Case Details
In the Panel's view, the Respondent in this case is not entitled to register a domain name incorporating the company name and trademarks of the Complainants, because this conduct can cause confusion among Internet users and consumers (see The Stanley Works and Stanley Logistics, Inc. v. ...Previous UDRP panels have held that the use or registration of a domain name which is evidently connected with a well-known trademark, by someone with no connection with said trademark, suggests opportunistic bad faith (See Sanofi-aventis, Aventis Inc. v. ...
2015-05-07 - Case Details
It is well-established that the gTLD used as technical part of a domain name may be disregarded (see Autodesk v. MumbaiDomains,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0286). The relevant comparison to be made is with the second-level portion of the Disputed Domain Name, specifically: “sodexos”.
...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. ...
2020-07-22 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s world famous trademark LEGO. The fame of the trademark has been confirmed in numerous previous UDRP decisions: for example, see LEGO Juris A/S v. ...The addition of the word “arts” does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s registered trademark LEGO. See, e.g., Harrods Limited v. Simon Harkin Travel,
WIPO Case No. ...
2012-07-03 - Case Details
See LEGO Juris A/S v. Mohamed Ouattara / Integral Assets Ltd,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0564 (finding the domain name to be confusingly similar as it included a well-known trademark like LEGO in its entirety) and V&S Vin&Sprit AB v. ...First of all, it is to be noted that “Lego” is a household name that has been the subject of unauthorized registration as domain name time and again. See LEGO Juris A/S v. ...
2010-09-13 - Case Details
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, it is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and it is not making either a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
...The addition of the word “software” 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”), in this case “.com”, may be ignored when assessing the similarity between a trademark and a domain name (see, e.g., VAT Holding AG v. ...
2020-02-24 - Case Details
In Vivendi Universal v. Jay David Sallen, WIPO
Case No. D2001-1121, the panel stated that "mere passive holding of
a domain name can qualify as bad faith if the domain name owner’s conduct creates
the impression that the name is for sale." ...Some panels have found bad faith when the "-sucks.com" domain name
was registered by a competitor of the Complainant in order to draw away business.
In BRIO Corp. v. ...
2003-10-24 - Case Details
Complainant brought a UDRP proceeding and on July 12, 2013 obtained the cancellation of the Disputed Domain Names. AREVA v. N/A, Alex Makarov / Domain Project LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2012-1057. As disclosed by the Registrars to the Center, the Disputed Domain Names were re-registered in the name of Respondent in September 2012. ...Under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, a respondent may demonstrate rights and legitimate interests in an inactive domain name by showing, among other circumstances, that before receiving any notice of the dispute, Respondent made “demonstrable preparations to use the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services,” or has been “commonly known by the domain name.” ...
2013-09-19 - Case Details
Respondent is Name Redacted.1
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a
PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).
3. ...See Roust Trading Limited v. AMG LLC, WIPO Case No.
D2007-1857.
Most importantly, Complainant contends Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection
with a bona fide offering of goods or services because, as Complainant’s Annex evidence of the web page
connected to the disputed domain name shows, the disputed domain name resolved to a login page website
where Respondent misused Complainant’s VALERO Mark, attempting to create a false association with
Complainant. ...
2024-02-23 - Case Details
The use or absence of punctuation marks, such as hyphens and spaces, does not
alter the fact that a domain name is confusingly similar to a mark: Chernow
Communications, Inc. v. Jonathon D. Kimball, WIPO
Case No. ...The Complainant has been successful in a number of domain name disputes involving
domain names similar to the words "Singapore Airlines". In Singapore
Airlines Limited v European Travel Network, WIPO
Case No. ...
2001-06-25 - Case Details
See PRL USA Holdings, Inc. v. Spiral Matrix,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0189. Numerous WIPO UDRP decisions have recognized that adding a generic word is insufficient to give any distinctiveness to the domain name in dispute. ...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Both under past UDRP decisions (see for instance Carolina Herrera, Ltd. v. Alberto Rincon Garcia,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0806 and Nike, Inc. v. B.B. de Boer,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1397) and under the Policy itself (see paragraph 2), a well-established principle is that when someone registers a domain name, it represents and warrants to the registrar that, to its knowledge, the registration of the domain name will not infringe the rights of any third party. ...
2011-11-14 - Case Details
The Respondent is Ai Linli of Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.
2. The Domain Name And Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The test of confusing similarity under the Policy is confined to a comparison of the domain name and the trademark alone: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Traffic Yoon,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0812. The content of a respondent’s website is generally disregarded (A&F Trademark, Inc. and Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc v. ...
2013-02-06 - Case Details
The Respondent is Reserved for Customers, MustNeed.com, Taipei, Taiwan, Province
of China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”)
is registered with Moniker Online Services, LLC.
3. ...The overwhelming majority of these trademark registrations antedate the Respondent’s registration of the Domain Name.
The Complainant owns the domain name which was registered on March 13, 1996, and antedates the registration of the Domain Name. ...
2006-02-21 - Case Details
The Respondent is Above.com, Domain Privacy of Victoria, Australia / Ready Asset, Nish Patel of Xiamen, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Above.com, Inc. ...Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that Complainant must prove, with respect to the disputed domain name, each of the following:
(i) the domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2014-07-09 - Case Details
The Respondent is Digi Real Estate Foundation, Panama City, Panama.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with eNom.
3. ...Nevertheless, whether “the trademark and the disputed domain name are confusingly similar depends on many factors, including the relative distinctiveness of the trademark and the non-trademark elements of the domain name, and whether the non-trademark elements detract from or contradict the function of the trademark as an indication of origin” (Aventis Pharma SA., Aventis Pharma Deutschland GmbH v. ...
2007-05-29 - Case Details
Weber-Stephen
Products Co. v. Armitage Hardware, WIPO Case No. D2000-0187. See Final Report of the First WIPO
Internet Domain Name Process, April 30, 1999, paragraphs 169-177. ...See, e.g. Instagram, LLC
v. Temp name Temp Last Name, Temp Organization, WIPO Case No. D2019-0109. See also Instagram,
LLC v. ...
2022-07-08 - Case Details
D2000-0047; Mattel Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy,
WIPO Case No. D2011-2264). It is a well-established principle that the addition of descriptive or non-distinctive terms to a complainant’s trademark in a domain name may not dispel confusion.
...The Panel finds that the Respondent must have known the existence of the famous CAF trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. The Panel reminds that registration of a well-known trademark as a domain name may be a clear indication of bad faith in itself (see The Gap Inc. v. ...
2012-07-18 - Case Details
The Respondent is Yeliz Sanal of Izmir, Turkey.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Complainant’s assertions are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of the absence of rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name on the part of the Respondent. The burden of production therefore shifts to the Respondent to show by concrete evidence that it does have rights or legitimate interests in that domain name: Do The Hustle, LLC v. ...
2013-05-10 - Case Details
The Respondent is Asep Saepul of Bandung, Jawa Barat, Indonesia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
3. ...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Given the international reputation of the STOCKMANN mark, the Panel finds that in all likelihood the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s STOCKMANN trademark at the time it registered the disputed domain name. (see Revlon Consumer Product Corp v. Domain Manager,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0602; Microsoft Corporation v. ...
2012-04-17 - Case Details