Therefore, it strains credulity to believe that the Respondent had not known of the Complainant or its SPEEDY CASH Mark when registering the Disputed 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). ...Further, when the links on pay-per-click pages are based on the trademark value of a domain name, the trend in UDRP decisions is to recognize that such practice constitutes bad faith. See Champagne Lanson v. ...
2022-02-14 - Case Details
The Respondent is Domain Administrator, of West Bay, Grand Cayman, WBKY.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is presently registered
with Rebel.com Services Corp 9 (herein the “domain name in dispute”).
3. ...The Complainant submits that the above mentioned facts
shift upon the Respondent the burden to establish that it has rights or legitimate
interests in the domain name in dispute. See PepsiCo. Inc. v. Amilcar Perez
Lista d/b/a Cybersor, WIPO Case No. D2003-0174.
...
2007-02-02 - Case Details
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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").
...Complainant’s attorneys sent a letter and email to Respondent in June 2003, advising Respondent of Southwest Airlines’ rights in the SOUTHWEST AIRLINES name and mark, asserting that Respondent’s registration and use of the southwestairlinetickets.com domain name violated Complainant’s rights and requested that Respondent immediately discontinue that use and assign the Domain Name to Southwest Airlines.
...
2003-12-19 - Case Details
Furthermore, the addition of a generic term does not render the domain name different or distinctive from the trademark.
The Complainant has relied on the decision in ARAG Allgemeine Rechtsschutz-Versicherungs-AG v. ...In this case the Panel observed that “The word “group” is generic. It does little to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s mark.” In Audi AG v. Dr. Alireza Fahimipour,
WIPO Case No. DIR2006-0003, Audi AG v. ...
2007-11-08 - Case Details
See Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1525.
The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant's HAVELLS trademark, which makes the disputed domain name confusingly similar to this mark. ...On the contrary, in its Response, the Respondent, by offering the voluntary (emphasis added) transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant, clearly indicates that the Respondent does not have any such rights. See Belupo d.d. v. ...
2016-10-12 - Case Details
It has been recognized repeatedly in previous UDRP panels that the whole reproduction of a trademark in a
domain name is sufficient to establish confusing similarity: See Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and
Garwood S.Wilson, Sr., WIPO Case No. ...Da Cunha Ferreira
Sole Panelist
Date: October 23, 2023
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Sodexo v. Letícia Nagy, Sodexo
Case No. D2023-3481
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2023-10-27 - Case Details
The Respondent is Rong Lei of Changzhou, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC. ...Indeed, “[t]he mere addition of a descriptive term to an identical trademark has been repeatedly held by previous 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).
Also, the addition of gTLD “.info” to the disputed domain name does not avoid confusing similarity. ...
2015-02-24 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s world famous trademark LEGO. The fame of the LEGO trademark has been confirmed in previous UDRP decisions (LEGO Juris A/S v. ...This “click-through revenue” is then ordinarily split between the domain name parking service provider and the owner of the domain name (see, for example, Owens Corning v. ...
2013-07-08 - Case Details
The Respondent is Standard Tactics LLC, of Santa Fe, New Mexico, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Domain Name was registered on April 27, 2007.
4.6 At some point after registration the Domain Name resolved to a web page generated by the Registrar’s domain name parking service. ...
2008-03-03 - Case Details
It is also established that the addition of generic terms to a domain name has little, if any, effect on a determination of confusing similarity between the domain name and the mark (Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. ...Tropic Web,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0624; Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0455).
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. ...
2012-11-14 - Case Details
This stems from the fact that the domain name contains sufficiently recognizable aspects of the relevant mark. see also Wachovia Corporation v. ...WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.9; see also Paris Hilton v. Deepak Kumar,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1364. Lastly, there is no evidence suggesting that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name.
...
2020-05-20 - Case Details
“This test typically involves a side-by-side comparison of the domain name and the textual components of the relevant trademark to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the domain name … [I]n cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar...”). ...See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4 and i.a. Go Daddy Operating Company, LLC v. Wu Yanmei,
WIPO Case No. D2015-0177 (emails sent by the respondent from domain names using the complainant's trademark in an attempt to obtain complainant’s customer information was held to be use of the disputed domain name for a phishing scheme and consequently bad faith under the Policy); AB Electrolux v. ...
2019-12-13 - Case Details
It submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its SANOFI Trademark and, in relying on Sanofi v. Ojet Ohbrain,
WIPO Case No. ...Then the Complainant claims that the Respondent has already engaged in selecting another disputed domain name in a specific attempt of free riding on the coat tails of the Complainant upon registering the domain name , Sanofi v. ...
2017-03-20 - Case Details
The Respondent is Thilak Raj, Net Jobs, Rajasthan, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. ...Alberto Rincon Garcia,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0806; Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Seweryn Nowak,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0022) and under the Policy (see paragraph 2), that the domain name registrant 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.
...
2009-04-02 - Case Details
Respondent is Private Whois Escrow Domains Private Limited/LAKSH INTERNET SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED of Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Lead Networks Domains Pvt. ...In numerous previous decisions under the Policy, panels have found that a domain name consisting of two trademarks is nevertheless confusingly similar to one of the trademarks. See, e.g., Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. ...
2008-09-17 - Case Details
The Respondent is Oneandone Private Registration of Pennsylvania, United States of America / Alberto Suzano of California, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The Disputed Domain Name is registered with 1&1 Internet AG.
3. ...The Complainant says that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in order to prevent the Complainant, as the owner of the SUZANO mark, from reflecting its mark in a corresponding “.com” domain name. ...
2011-02-02 - Case Details
Under the confusing similarity test, the Top-Level Domain (TLD) suffix of the disputed domain name, <.pro>, is generally disregarded. See Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla Corporation v. ...Use of a domain name as a pay-per-click website is not in and of itself illegitimate. McMullen Argus Pbl’g Inc. v. ...
2014-07-22 - Case Details
The test for confusing similarity should focus on a comparison between
the trademark and the domain name alone. See Authur Guinness Son & Co.
(Dublin) Limited v. Dejan Macesic, WIPO
Case No. D2000-1698 (January 25, 2001); WIPO
Overview, section 1.2.
...The domain name does not have an active website. Lack of
active use of the domain name does not, as such, prevent a finding of bad faith.
...
2005-07-28 - Case Details
Such use includes use of the Domain Name as part of an email address. Bank for International Settlements v. James Elliott,
WIPO Case No. ...The Respondent’s submission of false registration information reinforces the conclusion that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith. Western Union Holdings, Inc. v. XYZ a/k/a Chahat Topiwala,
WIPO Case No. ...
2007-06-21 - Case Details
NetCorporation,
WIPO Case No. DRO2006-0007 and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Brad Tauer,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1076 where it was found “the amount sought, $475, far exceeds the domain name registration fee and Respondent did not present any documentation as to any other ‘out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name').
...Inc. as well) – through an auction website is indicative of bad faith. See Reckitt Benckiser AG v. Nazim Oren,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0286 (bad faith in attempting to sell domain names through the domain name auction site despite knowledge of the complainant's marks)”.
...
2009-07-30 - Case Details