The disputed domain name has also been used in bad
faith by the Respondent. The disputed domain name is not in active use but the
Complainant refers to the previous Telstra case (Telstra Corporation
Limited v. ...Accordingly it is possible that respondent’s
inactivity or passive holding of the domain name may prove that the domain name
has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant contends that in evaluating of all of the circumstances in the underlying case the following circumstances shall be taken into consideration:
1) The Complainant’s trademark DEUTSCHE TELEKOM is widely known, as evidenced by its substantial use and reputation throughout the world.
2) Since the domain name remains unused, the Respondent has provided no evidence whatsoever of any actual or contemplated good faith use by it of the domain name.
3) As can be seen from the prior use of the disputed
domain name the Respondent can easily use the domain name for sponsored links
or in competition with the Complainant’s products (see Lowen Corporation
d/b/a Lowen Sign Company v. ...
2006-05-09 - Case Details
The Respondent is Nam Jong Kang, Republic of Korea.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Crazy Domains FZ-LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...It is also well accepted that a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), in this case “.net”, may be ignored when assessing the similarity between a trademark and a domain name (see, e.g., VAT Holding AG v. ...
2019-07-01 - Case Details
The Respondent is Venture Services, Inc., with addresses in Georgia USA; and Arizona 85268, USA.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
This dispute concerns the following domain name ("Disputed Domain Name"), .
...Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of this domain name. See Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. Smithberger, D2000-0138 (WIPO) April 19, 2000, (only arguable basis for claim that domain name owner has legitimate interests would be if he could show he has prior rights in the name, or was affiliated with an entity he has registered). ...
2001-12-31 - Case Details
The Respondents
The Second Respondent argues that the disputed domain name is not identical to the Complainant’s domain name and that the Complainants’ domain name is relatively new.
...Fifth Third Bancorp v. Secure Whois Information Service,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0696. Second, the Panel finds that the deactivation of the website to which the disputed domain name resolved after notice of the dispute was given to the Respondents indicates at least that the Respondents intended to avoid a claim of bad faith use of the disputed domain name. ...
2012-01-13 - Case Details
The Panel considers no rights or legitimate interests derive from such use of the disputed domain name.
The Panel considers the Respondent is not commonly known by its domain name. See Areva v. ...As stated by the panel in Hertz System, Inc. v. Domainproxyagent.com/Compsys Domain Solutions Private Limited,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0615 “[m]anifestly, the attraction of the Domain Name to the registrants was not any right or legitimate interest in respect of the Domain Name, but its fame and attractive quality derived from the presence of the well-known name and service mark of the Complainant”.
...
2014-03-21 - Case Details
The Respondent is Lyu Jin Won of Gwangju, Republic of Korea.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Inames Co., Ltd. ...See Olympus USA, Inc., Olympus America, Inc., and Olympus Optical Co., Ltd v. World Photo Video and Imaging Corp.,
WIPO Case No. D2001-1464.
It is well established that the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com" is typically without legal significance when comparing the disputed domain name to the Complainant's trademark. ...
2017-08-11 - Case Details
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”).
...Decision
The Panel finds the following: 1) the domain name
is confusingly similar to the trademark in which Complainant has protectable
rights; 2) Respondents do not have rights or legitimate interests in the domain
name; and 3) the Respondents have registered and used the domain name in bad
faith. ...
2004-08-17 - Case Details
It is established that incorporation of a complainant’s distinctive trademark in its entirety into a disputed domain name is sufficient to establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark and the addition of a descriptive element to the disputed domain name does not sufficiently differentiate the disputed domain name from the trademark (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...D2001-0903), rather; it demonstrates the Respondent’s lack of a right or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name (Pfizer, Inc. v. Seocho and Vladimir Snezko,
WIPO Case No. D2001-1199; Pfizer, Inc. v. jg a/k/a Josh Green,
WIPO Case No. ...
2013-07-02 - Case Details
Thus, the Panel notes that “.com” should not be taken into account when comparing the disputed domain name with the claimed trademarks as it is only a technical and necessary part of the disputed domain name with no distinguishing feature nor legal significance (See Figaro Classifieds v. ...Previous UDRP panels have also held that “pluralizing Complainant’s trademark does not avoid confusingly similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark” (see Dr. Ing. H.c. F. Porsche Aktiengesellschaft v. John Smith,
WIPO Case No. ...
2019-07-29 - Case Details
D2011-1971 and Automobili Lamborghini Holding S.p.A. v. George Salazar / Jorge Salazar,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0708..
Therefore the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.
...This conclusion has been applied also to cases were a former distributor retained the domain name after termination of the distribution agreement (Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd v. Pimser Electronics Ltd. ...
2012-08-17 - Case Details
The evidence in the file shows that there is no active website linked to the disputed
domain name. The disputed domain name reflects Complainant’s name and mark in its entirety.
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 Casio Keisanki Kabushiki Kaisha (Casio Computer
Co., Ltd.) v. ...See also Flight
Refuell ing Ltd v. Neog Inc, WIPO Case No. D2005-0503: “there is no website that corresponds to the domain name [...] the Panel is
satisfied that Respondent is acting in bad faith [...] ...
2022-04-25 - Case Details
Respondent is Privacy Department, IceNetworks Ltd. of Reykjavik, Iceland.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp (the “Registrar”).
3. ...D2017-1591; CitiusTech Healthcare Technology Private Limited v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2015-2186.
The Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith, in the sense of the Policy.
7. ...
2018-04-05 - Case Details
See Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0903. The addition of a descriptive term does not serve to distinguish the domain name from the trademark. ...There is no evidence indicating that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names or the name "fendi". See for a similar finding ALDI GmbH & Co. KG v. zhou xiaolei,
WIPO Case No. ...
2018-04-06 - Case Details
The Panel notes that the “.store” generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) does not prevent confusing
similarity. It is well and long established that a gTLD extension may typically be disregarded when
assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark (see Virgin
Enterprises Limited v. ...WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1
Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity by impersonating the Complainant
can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent (see Lonza Ltd v. ...
2026-06-30 - Case Details
The Respondent is Domain Admin, Domain Whois Protection Service, Viet Nam / Ho Quoc Huan, Viet Nam.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The Disputed Domain Name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with P.A. ...Third, the Panel finds, similarly to other UDRP panels, that the addition of the gTLD “.com” to the Disputed
Domain Name does not constitute an element to avoid confusing similarity for the Policy purposes (see, e.g.,
Volkswagen AG v. ...
2022-07-28 - Case Details
The Panel finds, therefore, that the passive holding of the disputed domain name in this case does not
prevent a finding of bad faith.
In addition to the above, the Complainant has established that an email server had been configured on the
disputed domain name, thus inducing a likelihood that the Respondent might have contemplated to use the
disputed domain name for potential fraudulent use of an email address incorporating the Complainant’s
trademark and/or phishing purposes (Statoil ASA v. ...case=D2017-0046
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
AB Electrolux v. Ken David, Kems Ltd.
Case No. D2022-1671
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
4. ...
2022-07-07 - Case Details
It is well established that the addition of the gTLD “com” is typically without legal significance when comparing the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s trademark. See Guccio Gucci S.p.A. v. Brenda Hawkins,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0603; cf, Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...The Panel finds that offer to sell the disputed domain name sufficient evidence of bad faith. See, among others, Lockheed Martin Corporation v. Allen Jarosz,
WIPO Case No. ...
2016-02-04 - Case Details
“Where a Respondent has constructive notice of a trademark, and yet registers a confusingly similar domain name thereto, the Respondent cannot be said to have a legitimate interest in the domain name.” Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. v. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith.”); accord Volvo Trademark Holding AB v. Unasi, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2010-11-05 - Case Details
The Respondent is Moniker Privacy Services of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with ENom, Inc. ...UDRP panels have held that a respondent has engaged in “typosquatting” where the only difference between the domain name in dispute and the complainant’s trademark is two transposed letters (see, e.g., PartyGaming Plc v. ...
2016-02-17 - Case Details
It is also established that the addition of generic terms to the 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. ...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. ...
2014-03-24 - Case Details