The Respondent has engaged in a pattern of registering trademarks as domain names which amounts to bad faith. 11 This can be seen in the following cases:
- Toastmasters International v Bealo Group S.A., NAF 167968 concerning domain name ;
- Target Brands, Inc v. Bealo Group S.A., NAF 128684 concerning domain name ;
- Radisson Hotels v. Bealo Group S.A. d/b/a Promotechnology.com, NAF 214459 concerning domain name .
...
2005-02-03 - Case Details
D2001-0932) nor by the fact that the trademark includes additional generic elements which are not included in the disputed domain name (cf. Corcom, Inc. v. Jazette Enterprises Limited,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1218: omission of the word “sports”; Shell Vacations LLC, Shell Vacations Club, L.P. v. ...D2000-0429; Phenomedia AG v. Meta Verzeichnis Com,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0374).
On balance, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark because the essence of the trademark is incorporated in the domain name (and also in the Panel’s view, some Internet users might think that the “xpand” part of the domain name is referring to the XPAND trademark).
...
2010-12-06 - Case Details
See News Group Newspapers Limited and News
Network Limited v. Momm Amed Ia WIPO Case
No. D2000-1623 (January 18, 2001) (finding to be confusingly
similar to complainants’ mark PAGE 3 and domain name );
Letsbuyit.com v. ...All of these factors demonstrate Respondent’s bad faith in registering the Disputed Domain Name. See The Field Museum of Natural History v John Barry d/b/a Buy This Domain, National Arbitration Forum Case No. ...
2004-10-15 - 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
pays domain name owners a share of the advertising revenue
it earns from its hosted domain names. The Respondent submits that its legitimate
interest in the Disputed Domain Name is further supported by its use of the
Disputed Domain Name in connection with the provision of Yahoo advertising links
through and referred to Williams, Babbitt & Weisman,
Inc. v. ...A finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking may be made “if the Complainant
knew or should have known at the time that it filed the Complaint that it could
not prove that the domain name was registered in bad faith, see Futureworld
Consultancy Opty Ltd v. ...
2007-02-26 - Case Details
Furthermore, the disputed domain name does not currently resolve to any active web-site; such "passive holding" of the disputed domain name in itself is not capable of creating any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent therein (see, e.g., Pepperdine University v. BDC Partners, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2006-1003; Archipelago Holdings LLC v. Creative Genius Domain Sales and Robert Aragon d/b/a/ Creative Genius Domain Name Sales,
WIPO Case No. ...
2014-08-19 - Case Details
The critical inquiry under the first element of the Policy is whether the mark and domain name, when directly compared, are identical or confusingly similar. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...D2001-0031; EAuto, L.L.C. v. Triple S. Auto Parts d/b/a Kung Fu Yea Enterprises, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0047. Thus, where a respondent registers a domain name consisting of “dictionary” terms because the respondent has a good faith belief that the domain name's value derives from its generic or descriptive qualities, the use of the domain name consistent with such good faith belief may establish a legitimate interest. ...
2009-11-03 - Case Details
It is also well established that the specific top level of the domain name such as “.org”, “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar (see Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store, NAF Case No. 96209 (finding that Respondent does not have rights in a domain name when Respondent is not known by the mark); Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. ...
2007-08-03 - 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
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
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
Also, the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” to the Domain Name typically does not avoid confusing similarity. See F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. ...Respondent must have known of Complainant’s well-known STATOIL trademark when it registered and used the Domain Name. Such facts support a finding of bad faith registration. See Pfizer Inc. v. NA,
WIPO Case No. ...
2015-03-16 - Case Details
In many UDRP decisions, it is well established that “Where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusinglysimilar to that mark” (L’Oréal, Lancôme Parfums et Beauté & Cie v. ...Several previous UDRP panels have accepted that the numerical suffix does not have any impact on the overall impression of the domain name dominated by the trademark and have held that the domain name is therefore confusingly similar to the trademark (LEGO Juris A/S v. ...
2021-09-15 - 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
See Chanel, Inc.
v. Cologne Zone, WIPO Case No. D2000-1809
(finding no legitimate interest in use of CHANEL as part of domain name leading
to website selling various types of perfume). ...See The Sportsman’s Guide, Inc. v. JoyRide,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0153 (respondent’s
use of confusingly similar domain name to profit from confusion of internet
users was a parasitic use). ...
2004-11-03 - 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
The minimum bid was $75,000. Spider Web’s attempted sale of the domain name for $75,000 is strong evidence of bad faith. Mediasite S.A.R.L. v. Intellisolve Ltd., WIPO Case No. ...In Cellular One Group v. Paul Brien, D2000-0028 (WIPO March 10, 2000), Complainant filed a WIPO complaint against the Registrant of domain name . ...
2001-02-26 - 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 addition of the words “crown” and “center” does not confer a distinctive character to the disputed domain name, in relation to Complainants' trademarks. See America Online, Inc. v. Anson Chan,
WIPO Case No. ...
2010-06-23 - Case Details
Furthermore, the addition of the gTLD “.info” is not usually an element of distinctiveness taken into consideration when evaluating the identity or confusing similarity of a complainant’s trademark and a domain name, because Top-Level Domains are a required element of every domain name (see, e.g., Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...D2005-0517; and Pepsico, Inc. v. Domain Admin,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0435).
Furthermore, with respect to paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy, there is no question that an offer to sell the Domain Name to the Complainants was made. ...
2015-09-09 - Case Details
The word “group” which is added in the Domain Name is also disregarded as it is a non-distinctive dictionary term (Accenture Global Services Limited v. ...This is indicated by the fact that, as per Complainant, an email server has been configured on the Domain Name. The non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith (Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2018-08-09 - Case Details