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. ...“[I]t is possible, in certain circumstances, for inactivity by the Respondent to amount to the domain name being used in bad faith”. See also Red Bull GmbH v. Kevin Franke,
WIPO Case No. D2012-1531.
...
2020-10-29 - Case Details
The Registrar’s response further indicated that: (a) the disputed domain name was registered on May 26, 1997, (b) the registration will expire on May 25, 2012, (c) the Policy applies to the disputed domain name, (d) the registration agreement is in English, and (e) the disputed domain name will remain locked during the proceeding.
...Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s REALTOR Marks.
From a simple comparison of the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s mark REALTOR, no doubt exists that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks.
...
2012-03-08 - Case Details
The Respondent is Katie Silva, Peppermill Resort Casino Reno of Reno, Nevada, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (“Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Further, the addition of the generic words “hotel” and “and” in the Disputed Domain Name does nothing to distinguish it from the Complainant’s trade mark. It is well established that where the distinctive and prominent element of a disputed domain name is the complainant’s mark, and the only difference is a generic term that adds no distinctive element, then such a generic term does not negate the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark (see, Oakley, Inc. v. ...
2017-01-24 - Case Details
See Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Limited. v. Tim Healy/BOSTH,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0026 (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of the complainant combined with a generic word or term); see also Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. ...In Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0403, the panel held that a lack of rights or legitimate interest could be found where (1) Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant; (2) Complainant's rights in its related trademarks precede Respondent's registration of the contested domain name; and (3) Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name in question. ...
2008-11-05 - Case Details
Alienware Corp. v. Truther,
WIPO Case No. DCO2012-0027; Belo Corp. v. George Latimer,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0329. The addition of the word “info” does not distinguish the disputed domain name from THE SURF CLUB mark to avoid confusing similarity. ...As a technical part of the domain name, the “.com” TLD may be disregarded in determining confusing similarity. Alienware Corp. v. Truther, supra; Belo Corp. v. ...
2018-04-19 - Case Details
This does not seem to eliminate the identity or at least the similarity between Complainant’s registered trademark and the disputed domain name.
Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark for purposes of the Policy “when the domain name includes the trade mark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...The choice of the disputed domain name and the conduct of Respondent as far as the website to which the domain name resolves is indicative of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...
2011-10-25 - Case Details
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) is defined under the Rules as “using the UDRP in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name”.
...The Complainant, after unsuccessfully attempting purchase the disputed domain name from the Respondent, then filed a groundless Complaint. See, e.g., GIGS United S.L. v. SIE MANTIC,
WIPO Case No. ...
2020-09-22 - Case Details
The Respondent is Aleksandra Pesalj of Indianapolis, Indiana, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Go Daddy Software,
Inc.
3. ...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”).
...
2007-05-01 - Case Details
D2006-0073 (); Edmunds.com, Inc. v. Digi Real Estate Foundation,
WIPO Case No. D2006-1043 ).
Finally, the addition of a gTLD such as “.org” in a domain name is technically required. ...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.”).
...
2021-11-08 - Case Details
See, Aetna Inc. v. Peter Carrington a/k/a Party Night, Inc., NAF Claim No. FA154527 (“The use of a domain name to redirect Internet users is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy [paragraph] 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy [paragraph] 4(c)(iii).”); and Robert Bosch GmbH v. ...See, for example, American University v. Richard Cook, NAF Claim No. FA208629 (“Registration and use of a domain name that incorporates another's mark with the intent to deceive Internet users in regard to the source or affiliation of the domain name is evidence of bad faith.”); and Mostchoice.com Inc. v. ...
2009-09-22 - Case Details
The Panel also accepts that use of a domain name in this way does not provide a legitimate interest in that domain name under the Policy (see, for example, the decision of the three-member panel in Express Scripts, Inc. v. ...Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy does not require the owner of the domain name to be the entity that commercially gains from any diversion. It is simply a requirement that it is intended that somebody does (see for example, the decisions to this effect in V&S Vin&Sprit AB v. ...
2007-09-14 - Case Details
The mark registered by Complainant is SOCIETY OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL U.S.A. ST V DE P and the disputed domain name is . Thus, only a part of the registered mark is incorporated into the disputed domain name, and the "svdp" portion of the domain name shows up as ST V DE P in the registered mark. ...Respondent has elected
not to do so. See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0624.
6.11 Respondent cannot allege that it was commonly known by the domain name
or a name corresponding to the domain name because it was Complainant that previously
owned the disputed domain name; nor can Respondent allege that it is making
a fair use of the domain name since Respondent is making no use of the name
other than having a link to a pornographic website. ...
2004-06-08 - Case Details
The Respondent registered the domain name on September 4, 2003, and the domain name on December 17, 2002.
...Therefore, the present case does differ from those
where a respondent is predominantly offering under a certain domain name goods
and services non-related to that domain name (cf. Philip Morris Incorporated
v. Alex Tsypkin, WIPO Case No. ...
2004-09-03 - Case Details
Respondent is Renbu Bai of Lin Cang, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name ("Disputed Domain Name") is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the "Registrar").
3. ...See Caesars World, Inc. v. Forum LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0517 ("[T]he Complainant's worldwide reputation, and presence on the Internet, indicates that Respondent was or should have been aware of the marks prior to registering the Disputed Domain Name."); see also The Gap, Inc. v. ...
2014-12-01 - Case Details
Previous WIPO UDRP panels have ruled that the mere addition of a non significant element does not sufficiently differentiate the domain name from the registered trademark: “The incorporation of a trademark in its entirety is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered mark” (Britannia Building Society v. ...The mere addition of a descriptive term to an identical trademark has been repeatedly held by previous UDRP panels as not sufficient to avoid confusion between the domain name and the trademark” (Red Bull GmbH v. Chai Larbthanasub,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0709).
The addition of the gTLD “.com” to the disputed domain name does not avoid confusing similarity. ...
2010-06-09 - Case Details
It is established that, where a mark is the distinctive part of a disputed domain name, the disputed domain name is considered to be confusingly similar to the registered mark (DHL Operations B.V. v. ...It is also established that the addition of a descriptive term (such as here “refund” or “form”) or a geographical term (“uk”) to a 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. ...
2021-04-13 - Case Details
Under the Policy, once that case has been made, the respondent must demonstrate that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0455; Belupo d.d. v. ...For the Respondent to have a legitimate use of the disputed domain name under the Policy, such use must not infringe upon the Complainant's trademark. See CHANEL, Inc. v. ...
2009-03-03 - Case Details
The Domain Name and Registrar
2.1 The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Eranet International Limited (the “Registrar”).
3. ...It is also argued that the addition of hyphens to disputed domain names is insufficient to distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from the Complainant’s trademark because the dominant portion of the Disputed Domain Name is the Complainant’s trademark. ...
2018-11-16 - Case Details
Li Huaiqing, WIPO Case No. D2022-0538
(transferring the domain name because “The addition of the terms ‘the’ and ‘shop’
does not therefore prevent the disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademark (RICK OWENS)”; AMI Paris v. ...case=D2012-0032
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
AS IP Brands LLC v. Blue, Blue Face
Case No. D2022-2442
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2022-09-14 - Case Details
LLC, droid zdx, United States of America (“United States”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...case=D2020-2136
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Tetra Laval Holdings & Finance S.A. v. Joseph R. LLC, droid zdx
Case No. D2026-3341
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. ...
2026-09-09 - Case Details