WIPO
Overview 3.0, section 1.11; see also Volkswagen AG v. Darcy Jovic, WIPO Case No. D2015-1878.
Complainant’s LINEBET Mark is incorporated in its entirety into the disputed domain name. ...case=D2019-2521
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
TONKS LTD v. Ravi Kumar
Case No. D2025-1607
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2025-07-10 - Case Details
As noted in Section 3, below, the Registrar identified Venkateshwara Distributor Private Limited of Mumbai, India as the owner of the disputed domain name.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. ...- That the confusion created by the disputed domain name is further heightened by the fact that the Complainant is the registered owner of the domain name ...
2010-12-15 - Case Details
Respondent is Online Trade, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Sav.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...See Six Continents Hotels v. “m on”, WIPO Case
No. D2012-2525.
In view of the above, the Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that Respondent has
no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...
2024-01-18 - Case Details
See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Fred Sotelo d/b/a Toltec, NAF Claim No. 1008269 (“Each domain name currently resolves to an inactive website. ...Ergo, under the circumstances, the Panel finds that clearly the disputed domain name, , was registered and being used in bad faith. See Google Inc. v. Eamonn Smyth,
WIPO Case No. ...
2012-10-08 - Case Details
In Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. v. Hu Lim,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1793, the panel found, due to a small manipulation in the spelling as well as phonetic similarity, the domain name to be confusingly similar. ...Complainant cites a large number of cases in support of its argument that Respondent is typo-squatting and using the domain name in bad faith; there are many other examples of this abuse, such as Go Daddy Software, Inc. v. ...
2010-11-05 - 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. ...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 the gTLD “.com” to the disputed domain name does not avoid confusing similarity. ...
2012-11-13 - Case Details
Paragraph 4(a)(ii) requires the Complainant to prove that the Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, Croatia Airlines d.d. v. ...In light of the fact that disputed domain name was being used to promote goods and services that are in direct competition with the Complainant, the Respondent's website displays the Complainant's logo and is almost identical to the Complainant's official website, the Panel finds the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant's trademark before registering the disputed domain name, La Française des Jeux v. ...
2010-05-20 - Case Details
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
The Respondent requests a finding of reverse domain name hijacking. This is defined in the Rules as “using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name.” ...The Complainant seems to believe in its rights in the disputed domain name in good faith, and the Complainant’s filing as such is not an abuse of the Policy (cf. Rusconi Editore S.P.A. v. ...
2011-06-24 - Case Details
See Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0429 “the specific top level of the domain name such as ‘.net’ or ‘.com’ does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar”; Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B. v. ...Indeed the Respondent offered to assign the domain name for USD 153,000 amount that is certainly well over (see inter alia Bencom SRL v. NetCorporation
WIPO Case No. ...
2007-07-02 - Case Details
The Respondents: Seocho, 1336-2 Seocho-2dong, Seocho-Ku, Seoul, 137-072, Korea, and Vladimir Snezko, Post box 97, Moscow, RU 111538, Russia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The domain name in issue is (hereafter "the domain name").
...D2000-1274; Bayer Aktiengesellschaft v. Yongho Ko, WIPO
Case No. D2001-0205. As such, the Respondents are relying on the
confusing similarity between the domain name, and the PFIZER marks. ...
2001-12-10 - Case Details
Because the HANZEHOGESCHOOL mark had been used and registered by Complainant at the time of the disputed domain name registration, the Panel finds it more likely than not that Respondent had Complainant’s mark in mind when registering this disputed domain name (Tudor Games, Inc. v. ...The above indicate that Respondent knew of Complainant and chose the disputed domain name with knowledge of Complainant and its industry (Safepay Malta Limited v. ICS Inc.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2019-05-24 - Case Details
The Respondent is Nova Internet Inc., Miami, Florida, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered
with Intercosmos Media Group d/b/a directNIC.com (“Registrar”).
3. ...D2004-0836 (December 1, 2004) and National Collegiate Athletic
Association v. Dusty Brown WIPO Case No. D2004-0491
(August 30, 2004). This result follows from a simple comparison of the
disputed domain name against the Complainant’s marks.
...
2005-06-28 - Case Details
The Respondent is Domain Admin, CONG TY CO PHAN VONGROUP, Viet Nam.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (“Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with P.A. ...The Panel finds that “moroccanoil” remains the dominant element in the Disputed Domain Name. It is well established that the addition of a country name “vietnam”, to a trademark does not prevent confusing similarity, as it was found in previous UDRP decisions (see, e.g., Sika AG v. ...
2020-05-14 - Case Details
The response also confirmed that eNom.tv is the registrar of the disputed domain name, and stated that the Policy applied to the disputed domain name and the domain name was then held in a “locked” status. ...The Panel further finds that by registering the disputed domain name, the Respondent prevented the Complainant from reflecting its mark DIOR in a corresponding domain name, here being .
...
2007-06-26 - Case Details
The Respondent is Jill Wasserstein, Houston, Texas, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameScout
Corp.
3. ...See
Expedia, Inc. v. Seocho, WIPO Case No.
D2002-0288 (finding “expecia”is confusingly similar to “expedia”).
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Even though a domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark, a respondent may nevertheless use the domain name if the respondent has “rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.” ...
2006-03-16 - Case Details
The Complainant then secured the disputed domain name following a previous decision by the auDRP panel in Harness Racing Australia v. Acronym Wiki Pty Ltd,
WIPO Case No. ...Previous Proceeding
As noted above, the disputed domain name was subject to a similar complaint brought by the Complainant in Harness Racing Australia v. ...
2016-05-20 - Case Details
Accordingly, the
TLD of the disputed domain name here, “.org”, does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity. See,
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11; see also Research in Motion Limited v Thamer Ahmed Alfarshooti, WIPO
Case No. ...Prior UDRP panels have held that actual and constructive knowledge of a complainant’s rights at the time of
registration of a domain name constitutes strong evidence of bad faith. See WIPO Overview 3.0,
section 3.2.2. See also eBay Inc. v. ...
2022-05-19 - Case Details
Prior UDRP panels
have held “in the absence of any license or permission from Complainant to use its trademark, no actual or
contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the disputed domain name could reasonably be claimed”.
Sportswear Company S.P.A. v. Tang Hong, WIPO Case No. D2014-1875.
...D2019-1215; Beam Suntory Inc. v. Name Redacted, WIPO Case No.
D2018-2861.
Prior UDRP panels have also held where the disputed domain name is configured in a manner to wholly
incorporate a complainant’s mark, as Complainant’s GREENWORKS Mark is incorporated with the additional
geographical terms here, the disputed domain name can only sensibly refer to Complainant; thus, there is
no obvious possible justification for Respondent’s selection of the disputed domain names other than
registration in bad faith.
...
2024-04-18 - Case Details
The Complainant has emphasized that the previous UDRP panels (for example, in case Moncler S.p.A. v. Bestinfo,
WIPO Case No. D2004-1049) noted that when the respondent’s name is different from the domain name, it couldn’t be commonly known by the disputed domain name in question. ...The composition of the disputed domain name suggests to Internet users a connection of the disputed domain name with the LEGO trademark. ...
2020-11-12 - Case Details
On May 24, 2002, the Registrar verified that the domain name was registered to the Respondent, that the domain name is subject to the Policy, and that the domain name is currently active. ...See
Chanel Inc. v. Estco Technology, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0413. The Panel believes, on the balance of probability,
that in registering the Domain Name, Respondent was motivated by a desire to
benefit from the reputation of the name "WAVE-RITE".
...
2002-08-02 - Case Details