The Respondent must have known the GEICO Mark at the time of the registration and use of the disputed domain name because the Respondent has already been involved in the following numerous previous UDRP proceedings against the Complainant:
- Government Employees Insurance Company v. ...The disputed domain name is available for purchase on the “www.sedo.com” website for a minimum bid of
USD 899, which appears to exceed out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name.
...
2021-07-05 - Case Details
It has been held in many previous UDRP cases that incorporating a trademark in its entirety is typically sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark (see The Stanley Works and Stanley Logistics, Inc. v. ...As found in Revlon Consumer Products Corp. v. Amar Fazil,
WIPO Case No. D2011-0014, the addition of a laudatory or descriptive term does not serve to distinguish a disputed domain name but, “serves to accentuate rather than to diminish the confusing similarity”.
...
2011-07-05 - Case Details
According to Whois records, IA Consulting and Yen Chun Li have the same address. Furthermore, according to a search of a domain name database in January 2003, there were 16 domain name registrations in the name of the Respondent (under IA Consulting Inc.) and has in the past registered over 170 domain names. ...Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent did not file a response to the Complaint, and thus did not make
any assertions of interest in the domain name as provided for in paragraph 4(c)
of the Policy. As stated by the Panel in Cornell Trading Inc v. ...
2004-03-01 - Case Details
The Respondent is Pinball Machines Shop Aussie, Australia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Domain Directors Pty Ltd.
3. ...Accordingly, the
Respondent registered and used the dispute domain name in bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. It
is asserted that this has been undertaken in order to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website for
commercial gain; Muitas Ltd. v. ...
2025-07-28 - Case Details
The principle, however, appears to be that the “first come, first served” principle which applies to the first registrant of a domain name case can be displaced where the domain name comprises a famous trademark like SHELL.
6.17 There is a not dissimilar decision of the English Court of Appeal in British Telecommunications plc & Others v. ...For example in the Lutton Investments Inc. v. Darkhorse Distribution, NAF Claim No. 154142 there were arbitration proceedings relating to ownership of the VON DUTCH trademark asserted against the disputed domain name . ...
2012-11-16 - Case Details
Thus, it appears clearly to the Panel that the Respondent knew or must have known the existence of the VIRGIN and VIRGIN ATLANTIC trademarks at the time of registration of the disputed domain name.
The Panel concurs with previous UDRP decisions holding that registration of a well-known trademark, or of terms confusingly similar to such a well-known trademark, as a domain name is a clear indication of bad faith in itself (see The Gap Inc. v. ...The Panel finds that this deceptive and fraudulent use by the Respondent characterizes a use in bad faith.
Currently, the disputed domain name does not resolve to a website or other online presence. It has long been generally held in UDRP decisions that the passive holding of a domain name that incorporates a trademark, without obvious use for an Internet purpose, does not necessarily circumvent a finding that the domain name is being used in bad faith within the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy (Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2013-10-22 - Case Details
See, e.g., World Natural Bodybuilding Federation, Inc. v. Daniel Jones TheDotCafe, WIPO
Case No. D2008-0642).
The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. ...case=D2016-0364
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
AXA SA v. Pieri Lageveen
Case No. D2023-0851
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2023-06-02 - Case Details
See Laboratoire Nutergia v. Jeongyong Cho,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1582 (Jan. 14, 2008).
Because the Policy requires a showing that the Domain Name was both registered and used in bad faith, it is important to determine when the Domain Name was registered for the purpose of this showing. ...D2006-0450 (June 12, 2006) (transferring domain name, which Respondent 3vNetworks offered to sell to complainant for US $275,000);1 see IFIL S.p.A. v. ...
2008-06-10 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks, which are recognisable within the
disputed domain name. ...The evidence in the file shows that the website associated with the
disputed domain name shows links, apparently of PPC nature, to other web pages.
This Panel considers that Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or
legitimate interests in the disputed domain name (see Intocast AG v. ...
2022-10-20 - Case Details
The Respondent is Richard Mandanice, Domain Strategy Inc., 959 route 108, Bury Qc Canada JOB 1J0.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The domain name in dispute is .
...v. Camp Creek. Co., WIPO Case No. D2000-0113)
and that the test of confusing similarity under the Policy is usually confined
to a consideration of the disputed domain name and the trademark (AltaVista
Company v. ...
2002-09-25 - Case Details
This does not compromise the recognizability of Complainant’s marks within the disputed domain name, nor eliminates the identity between Complainant’s registered trademarks and the disputed domain name (Decathlon v. ...This does not eliminate the confusing similarity between Complainant’s registered trademarks and the disputed domain name either (Walgreen Co. v. Lin yanxiao / Linyanxiao,
WIPO Case No. D2016-1605).
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 trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name”. ...
2021-10-21 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Groupon, Inc. v. Domain Admin, Whois protection, this company does not own this domain name s.r.o / Hulmiho Ukolen, Poste restante
Case No. ...The addition of the word “support” 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. ...
2020-03-06 - Case Details
The Respondent is INFO TECH, 638-11, Seo-gu, daegu 703-016, Republic of Korea.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
This dispute concerns the domain name (the "Domain
Name").
...Thus, the Domain Name is,
as a minimum, confusingly similar to the much registered mark of Complainant.
See, e.g., Louis Vuitton Malletier v. ...
2002-08-23 - Case Details
Respondent is Mikhail Bulateckij of Kiev, Ukraine.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Internet Invest, Ltd. dba Imena.ua (the “Registrar”).
3. ...On March 28, 2011 Respondent sent e-mail communications in Russian stating that use of the disputed domain name as a primary domain name had ceased and that all traffic would be directed to a new domain name within 2-3 weeks, and asked whether additional actions should be taken to resolve the matter. ...
2011-05-27 - Case Details
The Respondent is hemoin satuhamon, Russian Federation.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...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. ...
2022-11-24 - Case Details
Scope of the Policy
The Policy is addressed to resolving disputes concerning allegations of abusive domain name registration and use. See Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation v. Bay Verte Machinery, Inc. d/b/a The Power Tool Store,
WIPO Case No. ...See, e.g., Barceló Corporación Empresarial, S.A. v. Hello Domain,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1380. Nor does such male fide use qualify as a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, or support any claim by the Respondent to have been commonly known by the disputed domain name. ...
2016-04-06 - Case Details
Heacock of Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Dynadot, LLC. (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Such activities are not regarded as a bona fide offering of goods or services capable of conferring a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name (see similarly mVisible Technologies, Inc. v. Navigation Catalyst Systems, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2013-05-29 - Case Details
The Respondent is Gezondheid aan huis B.V. of Ede, the Netherlands.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with SIDN through RootNet NOC B.V.
3. ...D2001-0344 (no bona fide use when respondent suggested that it was the manufacturer of complainant’s products);
- the respondent must not try to corner the market in all domain names, thus depriving the trademark owner of reflecting its own mark in a domain name. Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...
2018-11-02 - Case Details
The Complainant asserts that the Complainant never authorized the Respondent to use the disputed domain name, that the Respondent is not generally known by the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent has never engaged in any bona fide commercial activity in connection with the disputed domain name.
...There is no evidence that the Respondent has conducted any bona fide business under the disputed domain name or is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2022-01-31 - Case Details
See,
e.g., B & H Foto & Electronics Corp. v. Domains by Proxy, Inc. / Joseph Gross, WIPO Case No.
D2010-0842.
Here, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s STRONG-TIE trademark. ...See Philip
Morris Products S.A. v. homn mohmoodi, WIPO Case No. D2022-4158. Moreover, such use of the Domain
Name may potentially result in tarnishing Complainant’s reputation and goodwill.
...
2026-06-04 - Case Details