D2013-1583).
(ii) The domain name is a coined name which is neither descriptive nor generic and solely used to designate the complainant’s business (Statoil ASA v. ...Aaron Hall, supra; Statoil ASA v. Daniel MacIntyre, Ethical Island, supra).
(iv) The respondent has failed to explain as to why the domain name was chosen (Jupiters Limited v. ...
2016-11-11 - 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. ...
2021-03-08 - Case Details
It is well established that the top level designation used as part of a domain name should be disregarded: (see Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr.,
WIPO Case No. ...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. ...
2011-10-12 - Case Details
Domain
Names 4U and Fred Gray, WIPO Case No.
D2000-1403).
Registration of an ordinary word as a domain name,
and use of that domain name for an ordinary, non-trademark significance, can
be a legitimate interest (citing Thrifty, Inc. and Thrifty Rent-A-Car System,
Inc. v. ...Given the inherent non-distinctiveness of the name,
it was open to anyone to register the disputed domain name (and cites Deanna
S.p.A. v. Worldwide Media Inc., WIPO Case
No. ...
2004-11-09 - Case Details
CredoNIC.com / Domain For Sale,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0755 (in ordering transfer of domain name ); Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. credoNIC.com / DOMAIN FOR SALE,
WIPO Case No. ...South East Asia Tours,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0388 (in ordering transfer of domain name ; and Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Sdf fdgg,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0384 (in ordering transfer of domain name .
...
2008-11-07 - Case Details
Audi AG v. Hans Wolf,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0148 (March 15, 2001).
The disputed domain name directs Internet users to a website called “sedo.com,” a website wherein domain names, including the disputed domain name, are offered for sale. Such offer for sale of the disputed domain name by Respondent constitutes registration and use of the domain name in bad faith. Ticketmaster Corporation v. ...
2010-04-20 - Case Details
The propriety of a domain name registration may be questioned by comparing it to a trademark registered in any country (see Thaigem Global Marketing Limited v. ...It is well established that the top level designation used as part of a domain name may be disregarded: (see Universal City Studios, Inc. v. G.A.B. Enterprises,
WIPO Case No. ...
2013-11-26 - Case Details
It is well established that the top-level designation used as part of a domain name should 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 monetization unconnected with any bona fide supply of goods or services by the Respondent. ...
2011-11-09 - Case Details
Respondent is Domain Management, Syed Hussain of Closter, New Jersey, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Name.com LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd v. Mark Maddison,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0538). While a likelihood of confusion can already be present where two trademarks owned by two unrelated companies are combined in a domain name (as held in Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company v. ...
2013-02-21 - Case Details
Oliveira, National Arbitration Forum (NAF) Case No. FA 95835, and
InfoSpace.com Inc. v. Tenenbaum Ofer, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0075).
A.2. Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name
Complainant asserted the following:
Respondent has never been known by the name “Kate-Spade”, or the domain name in dispute. ...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 Respondent, but rather constitutes bad faith
under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy (citing Telstra Corporation Limited v.
...
2005-06-01 - Case Details
- The .com gTLD is merely instrumental, has no distinguishing capacity in the context of domain name, and does not alter the value of the trademark represented in the domain name (Telecom Personal, S.A., v. ...- The Respondent has a long domain name registration history aimed at set up infringing websites publishing mainly pay-per-click advertisements (LEGO Juris A/S v. ...
2012-05-04 - Case Details
In fact, the disputed domain name is still featured in numerous independent listings as Complainant’s domain name.
...The domain name is identical
to the Complainant’s mark BRONX ART ENSEMBLE. See Pharmacia & Upjohn
AB v. Dario H. ...
2004-09-14 - Case Details
The Respondent submits that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in good faith. The Respondent insists that the disputed domain name is not being used to profit from creating a false impression that the disputed domain name is the Complainant's genuine Internet name, and that the disputed domain name was not registered for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the disputed domain name to the Complainant. ...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. ...
2014-11-12 - Case Details
The addition of a purely descriptive/generic term to a well-known mark is not enough to prevent confusing similarity between the domain name and the incorporated trademark (see America Online Inc. v. Yetech Communication Inc.,
WIPO Case No. ...Indeed, the Respondent has maintained the website at the disputed domain name despite the Complainant's objections.
Such silence and ongoing cybersquatting are further evidence of the Respondent's bad faith (see Compiere Inc. v. ...
2015-02-18 - Case Details
It is well-established that the top-level designation used as part of a domain name should be disregarded: (see: Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr.,
WIPO Case No. ...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. ...
2012-01-04 - Case Details
The Respondent is Paul Yates of Miami, Florida, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Network Solutions, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...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”).
...
2013-06-03 - Case Details
D2020-1938; and ZB, N.A., a national banking association, dba Zions First National Bank v. Sharon White,
WIPO Case No. D2017-1769).
The inclusion of the generic Top-Level Domain “.com” to the disputed domain name constitutes a technical requirement of the Domain Name System (“DNS”). ...The Complainant has asserted that there is no evidence of the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, and that the Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name (see Beyoncé Knowles v. ...
2022-01-19 - Case Details
See, e.g., Inter-Continental Hotels Corporation v. Whois Agent, Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. / Fred Adams, see supra (using a disputed domain name “in employment and phishing scam activities via the disputed domain name” creates “a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name”); Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide Inc., The Sheraton LLC, Sheraton International Inc. v. infosheraton,
WIPO Case No. ...Pancil LLC v. Domain Deluxe,
WIPO Case No. D2003-1035.
2. According to the case documentation, the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with an employment/phishing scam. ...
2016-11-10 - Case Details
Accordingly,
the jurisdiction of this Panel is limited to providing a remedy in cases of
“the abusive registration of domain names”. Weber-Stephen Products
Co. v. Armitage Hardware, WIPO Case No. D2000-0187.
See Report of the WIPO Internet Domain Name Process, Paragraphs 169
& 170. ...D2000-0869 (domains of complaint sites suggested typosquatting,
there was evidence of actual confusion, and respondent reserved other domain
names incorporating famous marks); Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0429 (respondent’s noncommercial use of domain name
pre-textual where respondent made “overtures to be bought off” in
order to transfer domain name).
...
2005-02-11 - Case Details
The addition of generic terms does not serve to distinguish a domain name from registered marks. See Banconsumer Service, Inc. v. Mary Langthorne, Financial Advisor,
WIPO Case No. ...In addition, the Panel notes that many UDRP panels have held that bad faith use of a domain name by a respondent may also result from the fact its good faith use is in no way plausible (see Audi AG v. ...
2013-03-05 - Case Details