Use of the disputed domain name for unlawful activity cannot be considered legitimate non-
commercial or fair use. See Averitt Express, Inc. v. ...Such fraudulent
use of the disputed domain name demonstrates clear bad faith on the part of Respondent. See, e.g., PN II,
Inc. v. Sanais Pulte, Gaba, WIPO Case No. ...
2025-05-13 - Case Details
The addition of the gTLD ".com" to the disputed domain name does not avoid confusing similarity. See, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Macalve e-dominios S.A.,
WIPO Case No. ...See Mobimate Ltd. v. “World Mate” and Sachiwo Inagaki,
WIPO Case No. D2008-1867.
The Panel also notes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. ...
2010-10-12 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is therefore confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights according to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy (see Banque Pictet & Cie SA v. ...Such conduct constitutes bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy (see F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. James Lee,
WIPO Case No. ...
2019-05-27 - Case Details
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is comprised of two words: "audi" and "mobile". The generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) suffix ".com" can be disregarded under the confusing similarity test (see DHL Operations B.V. v. zhangyl,
WIPO Case No. ...Secondly, the Respondent previously registered the domain name which the UDRP panel ordered to be transferred to the Complainant in Audi AG v. ...
2015-01-26 - Case Details
The Respondent is Christopher Koda, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is (the disputed domain name). The disputed domain name is registered with Melbourne IT Ltd.
3. ...The addition of the term “super”, a common English term, does not serve to distinguish said domain name from the Complainant's DANONE trademarks.
Numerous WIPO panels have recognized that adding a generic word or words to a trademark is insufficient to give any distinctiveness to the domain name in dispute (See Groupe Auchan v. ...
2008-12-30 - Case Details
See Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd v. Steel Vertigogo,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0020. Given the renown of the CRÉDIT MUTUEL trade mark, its similarity to the disputed domain name, and the exact identity between the disputed domain name and the related trade mark CRÉDIT MUTUEL FACTOR, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name must have been registered in bad faith, with the intent to attract Internet users confused by the similarity. Although the disputed domain name is inactive at present, such passive holding can also constitute bad faith. See Credit Industriel et Commercial S.A. v. ...
2018-03-09 - Case Details
Such an offer does not constitute a bona fide sale of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair
use of the Disputed Domain Name. See Turner Network Television, Inc. v. Expired Domain
Resource****Maybe For Sale on Dynadot Marketplace**** c/o Dynadot, WIPO Case No. ...See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case
No. D2000-0003. “The lack of use [of a domain name] by itself does not indicate anything. ...
2022-10-19 - 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.
...Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant is the owner of the trademark SAFRAN both by registration and
acquired reputation and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark SAFRAN.
Regarding the addition of the term “grouip”, 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. ...
2023-01-11 - Case Details
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 ".com" to the disputed domain name does not avoid confusing similarity. ...It is suggestive of the Respondent's bad faith in these particular circumstances where the trademark, owned by the Complainant, was registered long before the registration of the disputed domain name (Sanofi-Aventis v. Abigail Wallace,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0735).
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark. ...
2017-07-26 - Case Details
b) For the purpose speculating on the profitability of the domain names as the domain names were not used and the Respondent was not commonly known by the said domain name [Space Imaging LLC v. ...c) It could easily be inferred or concluded that since the domain name does not resolve to an active website, that the Respondent had the intention of transferring the domain name for valuable consideration, perhaps in the future [Space Imaging LLC v. ...
2002-07-19 - Case Details
It was also held in Merrell Pharmaceuticals Inc., Aventis Pharma SA. v. Filips Kostins,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0943, that “the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark ALLEGRA, as the prefixes ‘buy’ and ‘generic’ are generic terms, which do not influence significantly the overall impression of the Domain Name which is dominated by the term ALLEGRA.” ...See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, NAF Claim No. 0741828, in which it was held that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.
...
2013-07-18 - Case Details
The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Abstract Names, Inc. d/b/a Answerable.com.
3. ...Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, as the Complainant has never authorized Respondent to use the Domain Name and Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name. ...
2007-06-13 - Case Details
In that respect, the Complaint cites Sanofi-aventis v. Clickstream Marketing LLC, WIPO Case No. D2005-0769. There the domain name in issue was . ...These are Medestea Internationale S.r.l. .v. Chris Gaunt, WIPO Case No. D2003-0011, which involved a cellulite reduction product, Cellasene Gold, launched in 2001 with the domain name in issue being registered shortly thereafter in April 2002. ...
2007-03-16 - Case Details
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the AKU trademark. The Disputed Domain Name is identical to that
trademark. It is well established that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), in this case “.com”, is not
generally taken into account for the purpose of determining whether a domain name is identical or
confusingly similar – see for example Rollerblade, Inc. v. ...“Passive holding” can itself amount to bad faith registration and use where the holding involves a domain
name deliberately chosen because of its association with the Complainant. See Telstra Corporation Limited
v. ...
2023-07-20 - Case Details
The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Nameview Inc.
3. ...D2001-0764 was a case where the Respondent had used the word ‘matress’ as its domain name, a word that the panel said was, citing America Online Inc. v. Media Dial Communications,
WIPO Case No. ...
2007-10-24 - Case Details
In this sense, the Panel finds that the registration of the disputed domain name represents typosquating as stated above. See Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc. v. LaPorte Holdings,
WIPO Case No. ...See Weetabix Limited v. Mr. J. Clarke,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0775.
In addition, the Panel agrees with the Complainant that the circumstance of the offer to sell the disputed domain name made by one Lavenia Eldredge, followed by immediate registration of the disputed domain name by the Respondent could be charged on the Respondent as an evidence of bad faith.
...
2016-01-07 - Case Details
Respondent is R R of Redlands, California, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The Disputed Domain Name is registered with FastDomain, Inc. ...D2004-0206; SoftCom Technology Consulting Inc. v. Olariu Romeo/Orv Fin Group S.L.,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0792.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the ALBERTO'S Mark pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2017-09-29 - Case Details
The fact that there is no active website linked to the disputed domain name
is another element to show that the Respondent does not use said domain name
in good faith (Telstra Corporation Ltd v. ...The Complainant goes on to cite cases where the fact that a domain
name wholly includes a Complainant’s mark was considered sufficient to
establish confusing similarity, despite the addition of generic words (Nokia
Corporation v. ...
2004-08-16 - Case Details
Hodinar,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0467 regarding the domain name ; Sanofi-Aventis v. Daichi Hoang,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0363 regarding the domain names and ; or Sanofi-Aventis v. ...Moreover, the present case is similar to previous recent case Sanofi-aventis v. Hodinar,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0467, as the disputed domain name incorporated exactly the same denominations but in a different order.
...
2008-10-10 - Case Details
Private Whois victoriassecret-usa.com, NAF Case No. FA1415313 (“Respondent has used the domain name in question in connection with an e-mail address incorporating the domain name to send fraudulent emails, posing as a Human Resources Manager for Victoria’s Secret); Mary Kay, Inc. v. ...The district court stated: “If such a name change could preclude a finding of bad faith, an entity could escape the effect of the ACPA simply by registering an infringing domain name and then changing its business name to match the infringing domain name.”); CyBerCorp Holdings, Inc. v. ...
2013-07-19 - Case Details