The Domain Name and Registrar
2.1 The disputed domain name (the disputed “Domain Name”) is registered with eNom (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Also the case of Revlon Consumer Products Corp. v. IONE Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1000 where the Panel ordered the transfer of the domain name, again to the Complainant. ...
2010-10-12 - Case Details
It is well-established that in considering whether a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark, the Top-Level Domain (for example, “.com” and “.net”) may be disregarded (GA Modefine SA v. ...D2017-1639; L’Oréal v. Robert Caceres, Dollerviews,
WIPO Case No. D2015-1200). The use of a domain name to induce Internet users to download malware is sufficient to find use in bad faith (Arnold Clark Automobiles Limited v. ...
2020-02-24 - Case Details
Respondent is / john kroehle, U.S.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...D2021-0981; see also Philip Morris Products S.A. v. Rich Ardtea, WIPO Case No. D2020-0528.
Prior UDRP panels have also held that a respondent’s selection of a disputed domain name that comprises a
complainant’s mark in its entirety demonstrates a respondent’s actual knowledge to support a finding of bad
faith in registering and using the domain name. ...
2023-08-02 - Case Details
It seems that Respondent made profits through the Internet traffic attracted to the websites under the disputed domain name. (See BKS Bank AG v. Jianwei Guo,
WIPO Case No. D2017-1041; BASF SE v. Hong Fu Chen, Chen Hong Fu,
WIPO Case No. ...See also Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. (This Domain is For Sale) Joshuathan Investments, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0787.
Thus, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.
...
2022-02-11 - Case Details
The Respondent is Nguyen Van Nhanh, Viet Nam.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with P.A. ...Thus, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights in the Disputed
Domain Name.
A reseller or distributor may be making a bona fide offering of goods and services and thus have rights or
legitimate interests in a domain name if its use meets certain requirements, which are described in the
decision Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ...
2022-09-20 - Case Details
In this regard, the Panel
finds that the said difference does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Complainant’s
trademarks and Disputed Domain Name. See Bang & Olufsen a/s v. Unasi Inc., WIPO Case No.
D2005-0728; Villeroy & Boch AG v. Jian Qui, WIPO Case No. ...D2008-1300; Villeroy & Boch AG v. Mario Pingerna, WIPO Case No. D2007-1912).
The Disputed Domain Name resolves to an inactive website as of the date of this decision. ...
2022-11-25 - Case Details
See, for example,
Eauto, LLC v Triple S Auto Parts d/b/a Kung Fu Yea Enterprises Inc D2000-0047
(March 24, 2000).
- That the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name
<3mcare.com> in particular that it is not using the domain name, or making
any demonstrable preparations to use the domain name, in connection with a bona
fide offering of goods or services, that it is not known by the name 3m, and
is not making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name...While no price is suggested
for this, it cannot be supposed that the offer is to sell only at the cost of
registration and transfer. In Dollar Financial Group, Inc. v. RXW Management,
FA 95108 (Nat Arb Forum, Aug 4, 2000), the Panel held that offering a domain
name for sale at a domain name auction website, is evidence of registration
and used in bad faith. ...
2001-06-18 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel finds on the case file that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.”); Intuit Inc. v. Privacy.co.com, Savvy Investments, LLC Privacy ID# 1130202,
WIPO Case No. ...Alpargatas S.A. v. Privacy.co.com, Savvy Investments, LLC Privacy ID# 884284,
WIPO Case No. D2019-0777. Complainant further alleges – and Respondent does not dispute – that Respondent was aware of Complainant’s marks when registering the disputed domain name. ...
2019-08-26 - Case Details
Respondent is Alberta Hot Rods, a Canadian business based in Alberta.
2. Domain Name and Registrar
The domain name at issue is < tammy.com>.
The Registrar of the domain name at issue is CORE (Internet Council of Registrars).
3. ...The Center verified that the Complaint satisfies the formal requirements of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules"), and the Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Supplemental Rules"). ...
2001-02-05 - Case Details
It is established that, where a trade mark is the distinctive part of a disputed domain name, the disputed domain name is considered to be confusingly similar to the registered trade mark (DHL Operations B.V. v. ...It is also established that the addition of a generic term (such as here the word “motel”) to the disputed domain name has little, if any, effect on a determination of legal identity between the domain name and the mark (Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. ...
2012-02-27 - Case Details
Complainant states that the disputed domain name was detected by the cybersecurity department of
Complainant on November 19, 2021, because a phishing attack was launched via the disputed domain
name.
...Complainant also notes that the disputed domain name is inherently associated with Complainant and its
activities, since Complainant owns the domain name , which differs to the
disputed domain name only by the absence of the letter “n” at the end of the word “american".
...
2022-05-27 - Case Details
The Complainant also contends that the FORD FOUNDATION mark is now so famous that Internet users would think the disputed domain name was associated with the Complainant in some way and cite a recent WIPO UDRP decision – The Ford Foundation v. ...Further it finds that the patent inaccuracy of contact detail in the registration record, taken with the use to which the domain name has been put, further sustains the finding of bad faith registration and use (see e.g. Telstra Corp. v. ...
2008-01-18 - Case Details
The Complainant further contends that since the Respondent is merely using
the domain name to redirect internet users to its website,
it cannot establish that it has a legitimate interest in this domain name, citing
in support decisions including Alta Vista Company v. ...Crew International Inc. v. crew.com, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0054.
The Complainant therefore submits that the Respondent
is using the domain name in bad faith. ...
2007-04-13 - Case Details
This lack of a relationship between Complainant and
Respondent creates a strong presumption that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the
Disputed Domain Name. See, e.g., Pfizer Inc. v. NA, WIPO Case No. D2005-0072.
Furthermore, no bona fide use of the Disputed Domain Name has been made since its registration on
July 20, 2023. ...WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4; see also Lewis Silkin LLP v. Jason Sanjoto, WIPO Case No. D2018-2860
(finding bad faith when a disputed domain name resolved to an inactive website and the domain name was
used to send fraudulent emails to the complainant’s customers in order to solicit payment); Ropes & Gray
LLP v. ...
2023-10-11 - Case Details
The top level domain name “.info” does not bear any relevance as it is a compulsory element of each domain name and does not have any source-indicating significance (Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. ...D2004-0784), and “a reseller does not have the right to incorporate the trademark of the resold goods into the domain name of the reseller” (Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. #1 Viagra Propecia Xenical & More Online Pharmacy,
WIPO Case No. ...
2007-09-17 - Case Details
In this Panel’s view, such use does not confer rights or legitimate interests to the Respondent. For a similar finding, see F5 Networks, Inc. v. Domain Administrator, c/o Whois Watchdog,
WIPO Case No. D2016-0043.
Also, there is no evidence indicating that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, or the name “hackercraft”. ...Under these circumstances, the Panel considers that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark HACKERCRAFT. See MasterCard International Incorporated v. ...
2019-10-23 - Case Details
The Complainant, relying on Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0903, maintains that the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. ...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. ...
2017-01-31 - 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 nor 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.
...Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant is the owner of the trademark GABOR both by registration and
acquired reputation and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark GABOR.
Regarding the addition of the country name “ireland” and a hyphen, the Panel notes that it is now well
established that the addition of other terms or letters to a domain name does not prevent a finding of
confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the trademark (see, e.g., Aventis Pharma SA.,
Aventis Pharma Deutschland GmbH v. ...
2022-07-27 - Case Details
Respondent's offer to sell the Domain Name also indicates Respondent's lack of rights or legitimate interests. See Skipton Building Society v. ...See, e.g., Dunkin' Donuts Inc. and Dunkin' Donuts USA, Inc. v. Dazzledesigns,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0436 (July 17, 2004) (“Respondent's use of the domain name, incorporating Complainant's name and registered marks to a pornographic website is per se evidence of bad faith”). ...
2009-09-02 - Case Details
The Panel concludes that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith.
Because the BPCE mark had been widely used and registered by Complainant before the Domain Name registration, 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. ...The above further indicates that Respondent knew of Complainant and chose the Domain Name with knowledge of Complainant and its industry (Safepay Malta Limited v. ICS Inc.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2020-11-04 - Case Details