D2009-0320; The Gap, Inc. v. Deng Youqian,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0113). It is implausible that Respondent was unaware of Complainant when he registered the disputed domain name.
...WhoisGuard, Inc. / Mamadou Paulo,
WIPO Case No. D2019-0815 and Carrefour v. WhoisGuard, Inc. / Mamadou Paulo,
WIPO Case No. D2019-0758). The panels held in these cases that the registration of these domain names amounted to abusive domain name registration.
...
2019-10-18 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that its trademark rights predate the Respondents’ registration of the Disputed Domain Name . It submits that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its trademark because the Disputed Domain Name wholly incorporates its registered trademark (citing Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ...It is also well-established that the addition in a domain name of a geographic name to a trademark is not sufficient to make the domain name distinguishable in relation to the trademark at issue for purposes of the Policy (see: Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. ...
2011-03-24 - Case Details
D2017-1769).
The addition of the generic Top-Level-Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” to the disputed domain name constitutes a technical requirement of the Domain Name System (“DNS”), and therefore has no legal significance in the present case (see CARACOLITO S SAS v. ...Therefore, the Respondent’s conduct cannot be considered as a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name (see Wachovia Corporation v. Peter Carrington, WIPOCase No. D2002-0775; and Edmunds.com, Inc. v. ...
2021-06-17 - Case Details
That Respondent does not hold a trademark or trade name for the term RTVE and has not been authorized to register the domain names in dispute, and cites Société Air France v. ...and cites J. García Carrión, S.A. v. Mª José Catalán Frías,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0239).
That rerouting the domain name to a domain park or not giving a website content are undisputable signs of use that goes against good faith (and cites respectively, The British Broadcasting Corporation v. ...
2008-09-03 - Case Details
It is also well-established that the omission in a domain name of a single letter is typically not sufficient to make the domain name distinguishable in relation to the trademark at issue (See Microsoft Corporation v. ...It is well established that a respondent has a right to register and use a domain name to attract Internet traffic based solely on the appeal of a commonly used descriptive phrase, even where the domain name may coincidentally and unintentionally correspond to the registered mark of a complainant (see National Trust for Historic Preservation v. ...
2010-09-30 - Case Details
Case No. FA0003000094370.
Furthermore, the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s mark are phonetically
identical. See Microsoft Corporation v. Mike Rushton, WIPO
Case No. D2004-0123, VeriSign Inc.
v. VeneSign C.A., WIPO Case No.
D2000-0303.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical and confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark LILLY’S KIDS.
2. ...
2004-09-27 - Case Details
D2008-0287, Alstom v. Domain Investments LLC;
WIPO Case No. D2007-0077, NBC Universal Inc. v. Szk.com). Under Section 2 of the ICANN Policy, it is established that when someone registers a domain name, he represents and warrants to the registrar that, to his knowledge, the registration of the domain name will not infringe the rights of any third party. ...A finding of bad faith is supported in this case by the fact that “the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s well-known trademark” and that “there appears to be no conceivable good faith use that could be made by the Respondent of the disputed domain name” (see Jazzercise, Inc. v. ...
2021-02-22 - Case Details
It is well established that a respondent has a right to register and use a domain name to attract Internet traffic based solely on the appeal of a commonly used descriptive phrase, even where the domain name is confusingly similar to the registered mark of a complainant (see National Trust for Historic Preservation v. ...D2000-0163 and Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Samuel Teodorek,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1814).
The Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name is apparently for domain name monetization unconnected with any bona fide supply of goods or services by the Respondent. ...
2011-10-07 - Case Details
D2011-0003; and Schneider Electric S.A. v. Domain Whois Protect Service / Cyber Domain Services Pvt. Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2015-2333).
The addition of the gTLD “.com” to the disputed domain name constitutes a technical requirement of the Domain Name System (“DNS”), and therefore has no legal significance in the present case (see CARACOLITO S SAS v. ...KG v. Marius Graur
WIPO Case No. D2019-0208).
Furthermore, panels previously appointed under the Policy have decided that typosquatting amounts to bad faith registration of a domain name (see Lexar Media, Inc. v. ...
2021-02-10 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that its rights in that mark predate the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name . It submits that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its trademark, because the Disputed Domain Name incorporates in its entirety the BANKWEST trademark (citing Autoscout24 GmbH v. ...D2000-0163 and Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Samuel Teodorek,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1814).
The Panel further notes the Complainant’s claim that inaction in the form of passive holding of a domain name registration can, in certain circumstances, constitute a domain name being used in bad faith (e.g.: Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2015-02-02 - Case Details
The Respondent is Carolina Rodrigues, FCS Holdings Corp of Santiago, Chile.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is . It is registered with Power Brand Center Corp. ...- At the time of the filing of the Complaint, the publicly available registration information for the disputed domain name identified the registrant of the disputed domain name as “PrivacyProtect.org”, a provider of a WhoIs privacy service for domain name owners...
2012-05-15 - Case Details
Name Redacted,
WIPO Case No. D2018-0063;and Accor v. Pierre Masson,
WIPO Case No. D2018-1645.
The Complainant states that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. ...The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant when it registered the disputed domain name and the Panel cannot find any plausible circumstances in which the Respondent could legitimately use the disputed domain name (see also Microsoft Corporation v. ...
2021-04-08 - Case Details
NA a/k/a Kateryna Chernychenko, NAF Claim No. 1177320 (); 3M Company v. 3M Company c/o Domain Name Administrator, NAF Claim No. 1106749 (<3mporn.com>); General Media Communications, Inc. v. ...D2001-0661; America Online, Inc v. Viper,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1198). The Panel is therefore satisfied that the Respondent has also used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...
2010-07-05 - Case Details
It is also well established that the top level designation used as part of a domain name may be disregarded. (See Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr.,
WIPO Case No. ...D2000-0163, and Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Samuel Teodorek,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1814).
The Respondent's use of the Disputed Domain Name is apparently for domain name monetization unconnected with any bona fide supply of goods or services by the Respondent. ...
2014-12-29 - Case Details
KG, HUGO BOSS AG v. Hao Li,
WIPO Case No. D2015-1213 (“The Domain Name contains Complainants’ well-known HUGO BOSS trademark”).
...It is well established that a respondent has a right to register and use a domain name to attract Internet traffic based solely on the appeal of a commonly used descriptive phrase, even where the domain name is confusingly similar to the registered mark of a complainant (see National Trust for Historic Preservation v. ...
2015-11-26 - Case Details
Said domain name is also confusingly similar to the trademark DAN’UP. The elimination of the apostrophe in the domain name is not relevant (see Fry’s Electronics Inc. v. N.A. Domain Administrator,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0340; Edmunds.com, Inc. v. Yingkun Guo, dba This domain name is 4 sale,
WIPO Case No. ...
2008-03-31 - Case Details
- That the Respondent´s knowledge of the existence of Complainants' trademark when the disputed domain name was registered constitutes evidence of Respondent´s bad faith in the registration of said domain name, and cites Pharmacia & Upjohn Company v. ...The Respondent has not contested the Complainants' statements and evidence arguing illegitimate, commercial use of the disputed domain name.
Panels acting under the Policy have held that registration of a domain name incorporating another's famous mark does not confer any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name to the Respondent, but rather indicates bad faith under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy (see Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2010-06-23 - Case Details
v) Finally, the Complainant contends that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name but is instead passively holding the disputed domain name for commercial gain after the launch of his Internet business.
...See Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, or a corresponding name, or uses a corresponding name in a business.
...
2014-12-03 - Case Details
Adding a generic or descriptive word to a mark in a domain name also fails to detract from confusing similarity. See Fitness Anywhere, Inc. v. Simon Onil, NAF Claim No. 1372345 (finding confusing similarity between the domain name and the complainant’s TRX and SUSPENSION TRAINING marks, even though the domain name added the generic word “sale” and removed the word “training”); Philip Morris USA Inc. v. ...D2013-1087 (finding confusing similarity between the domain name and the complainant’s MARLBORO mark, even though the domain name added the “generic descriptive” word “team”); Tommy Bahama Group, Inc. v. ...
2014-02-10 - Case Details
The addition of the gTLD “.xyz” to the disputed domain name constitutes a technical requirement of the Domain Name System (“DNS”). Therefore, it has no legal significance in the analysis of confusing similarity in the present case (see CARACOLITO S SAS v. ...The consensus view among panels appointed under the Policy is that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, such as the misappropriation of copyrighted material, cannot confer rights to, or legitimate interests in a domain name (see section 2.13 of the WIPO Overview 3.0; see also Self-Portrait IP Limited v. ...
2021-11-10 - Case Details