Moreover the Respondent has never been commonly known by the disputed domain name and has no legitimate interest in the SWAROVSKI trademark or the name “Swarovski” (Marriott International, Inc. v. ...The Respondent was in the Panel’s view fully aware that the Complainant had established rights in the SWAROVSKI trademark at the time the Respondent registered the disputed domain name. The Panel also notes that the mere registration of the disputed domain name may not of itself confer rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name (Terroni Inc. v. ...
2014-05-01 - Case Details
The use of the Domain Name for an illegal activity such as constructing an email composition containing the Domain Name for deceiving purposes cannot confer rights or legitimate interests on Respondent (L’ Oréal v. ...Forum LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0517; Compart AG v. Compart.com / Vertical Axis Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0462).
Furthermore, the Domain Name incorporates in whole Complainant’s mark with a replacement of the letter “v” for “u” on the “Minerva” part of the Domain Name and the term “foods” that corresponds to the nature of Complainant’s business. ...
2018-11-19 - Case Details
D2015-1779). As Respondent is not actively using the domain name, there is no legitimate use that would give rise to a legitimate right or interest in the domain name (see Société Nationale des télécommunications: Tunisie Telecom v. ...Therefore, as passive holding evidences bad faith registration and use (Union InVivo v. Name Redacted,
WIPO Case No. D2020-1188) the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is used in bad faith (Linxens Holding v. ...
2022-03-16 - Case Details
The use of the Domain Name for an illegal activity such as constructing an email composition containing the Domain Name for deceiving purposes cannot confer rights or legitimate interests on Respondent (L’Oréal v. ...Because the MINERVA mark had been widely used and registered at the time of the Domain Name registration by Complainant, the Panel finds it more likely than not that Respondent had Complainant’s mark in mind when registering this Domain Name (Tudor Games, Inc. v. ...
2018-11-19 - Case Details
D2005-0694; Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. v. Sookwan Park,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0778). Moreover, the inclusion of the gTLD suffix “.com” does not avoid confusing similarity of the domain name and the trademark (AT&T Corp. v. ...The Respondent has never been known by the disputed domain name and has no legitimate interest in the Complainant’s trademarks or the name (Swarovski (Marriott Int’l, Inc. v. ...
2014-05-13 - Case Details
Complainant maintains that the disputed domain name infringes its registered trademark rights in V-KOOL and its common law trademark rights in I’M V-KOOL. ...Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name combines Complainant’s V-KOOL trademark and the letters “im”. The use of “im” with Complainant’s V-KOOL trademark as featured in the disputed domain name does not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the V-KOOL trademark to dispel the likelihood of confusion. ...
2012-01-26 - Case Details
D2003-0841 where the deletion of the letter ‘s' in domain name confusingly similar to complainant's domain name and trademark HERSHEY'S and in Pop Smear, Inc. v. ...See i.a. Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris 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. ...
2008-11-26 - Case Details
The Respondent had never been commonly known by the disputed domain name and had not acquired trademark or service mark rights in this domain name prior to the registration of the disputed domain name (Neteller plc v. ...Mere registration of the disputed domain name may not of itself confer rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name (Terroni Inc. v. ...
2013-11-21 - Case Details
John Zuccarini d/b/a Music Wave and the Domain Name RaveClub Berlin,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0440; America Online, Inc. v. Anson Chan,
WIPO Case No. ...This type of parking has consistently supported a finding of bad faith use of the domain name. See Maplin Electronics Limited v. Lee Jeongsoon,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0011; Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu v. ...
2010-11-05 - Case Details
See, Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. Domain Administrator / Pepito DZZD,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1213 (“The disputed domain name includes a misspelt version of the SWAROVSKI trademark of the Complainant. ...The Respondent has never been known by the disputed domain name and has no legitimate interest in the SWAROVSKI Marks or the name "Swarovski". See, Marriott Int'l, Inc. v. ...
2012-03-06 - Case Details
The use of the Domain Name for an illegal activity such as constructing an email composition containing the Domain Name for deceiving purposes cannot confer rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent (L' Oréal v. ...The Panel concludes that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith. Because the NESTLÉ mark is so well-known and had been widely used for more than 140 years and registered at the time of the Domain Name registration, the Panel finds it more likely than not that Respondent had Complainant's mark in mind when registering this Domain Name (Société des Produits Nestlé SA v. ...
2018-08-30 - Case Details
Respondent must now show by “concrete evidence” that it has rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Kate Spade, L.L. C. v. Darmstadter Designs,
WIPO Case No. D2001-l384; See Document Technologies Inc. v. ...See VeriSign Inc. v. Bin g Glu / G Design,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0421. At the time the Domain Name was registered, Complainant had already made widespread and substantial use of its LA QUINTA mark since 1969 and its domain name since 1995. ...
2010-11-02 - Case Details
D2007-1325;
- it is likely that Respondent registered the disputed domain name to prevent Complainant from using its trademarks in the disputed domain name. In this sense, the Complainant refers to the following panel decision: L’oreal v. ...VistaPrint Technologies Ltd., supra; Carrefour v. Park KyeongSook, supra; Carrefour v. Yujinhua, supra; Carrefour v. Karin Krueger, supra.
Therefore, in this Panel’s view, it is safe to conclude that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its CARREFOUR and CARREFOUR BANCA trademarks when it registered the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent’s intention was for the disputed domain name to trade on the renown of the Complainant and its trademarks. ...
2017-06-15 - Case Details
A screenshot of the error message shown when accessing the Domain Name as seen on April 24, 2019 has been provided to the Panel.
The Respondent's holding of the Domain Name with no active website is referred to as “passive use” (Philip Morris USA Inc. v. ...The Respondent clearly selected the Domain Name with the intention of taking advantage of the Complainant's reputation by registering a domain name fully containing the Complainant’s trade name with the intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain (Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. ...
2019-06-12 - Case Details
D2006-1374 ; Hilton Group Plc v. Young Nah,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0184, V&S Vin & Sprit v. Young Nah,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0961.
- That a review of the site to which the domain name resolves, will show links to third party pages without any reference to Complainant's Zema Trademarks or the Zema Group companies...D2007-0626 and Sanofi-aventis v. Montanya ILtd.,
WIPO Case No. D2006-1079.
Respondent has not submitted evidence showing that Complainant has granted Respondent any authorization to register the disputed domain name (see Société Air France v. ...
2008-11-18 - Case Details
D2011-0692; Compagnie Gervais danone v. Jose Gregorio Hernandez Quintero,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1050). Furthermore, regarding the “net” in the disputed domain name, the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix does not affect the likelihood of confusion, merely because it is necessary for the registration of the domain name itself (The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc v. ...The Respondent has never been known by the disputed domain name and has no legitimate interest in the Complainant’s trademarks or the name (Marriott International, Inc. v. ...
2014-07-15 - Case Details
Compagnie Gervais Danone v. Bethesda Properties LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1451 regarding the domain name ; Compagnie Gervais Danone v. Christopher Koda,
WIPO Case No. D2008-1639, regarding the domain name ; Compagnie Gervais Danone v. Edward Brooks,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0330 regarding the domain name ; Compagnie Gervais Danone v. ...
2010-10-27 - Case Details
As decided in other UDRP cases, "the test of identity or confusing similarity under the Policy is confined to a comparison of the disputed domain name and the trademark alone". See LEGO Juris A/S v. Name Administrator, Hong Kong Domains, LLC.
...On a direct comparison, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's KOÇ trademark in spite of such minor variation. As held in Koç Holding A.S. v. ...
2015-07-21 - Case Details
D2002-0002; and Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha d/b/a Toyota Motor Corporation v. S&S Enterprises Ltd,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0802.
The addition of generic terms like “us” to a trademark, within a domain name, does not add distinctiveness to said name, and does not alter the fact that such domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark (see Bank of America v. ...To carry into effect the similarity analysis, a panel need not take into account the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.com”, because such gTLD is necessary in a domain name. See Ahmanson Land Company v. Vince Curtis,
WIPO Case No. ...
2009-04-03 - 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