D2004-0482; Dolce & Gabbana s.p.a. v. Victory,
WIPO Case No. D2001-1174.
Turning to whether the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the DOLCE & GABBANA trademark, the Panel observes that the Disputed Domain Name comprises: (a) an exact reproduction of the word elements of Complainant’s trademark DOLCE & GABBANA; (b) hyphenated; and (c) followed by the top level domain suffix “.com” all in one continuous domain name.
It is 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. ...
2012-12-11 - Case Details
D2001-0313, and RRI Financial, Inc. v. Ray Chen, WIPO
Case No. D2001-1242. Furthermore, a registrant may not avoid confusion by
appropriating another’s entire mark in a domain name and adding a generic
or non-distinctive term in a domain name, according to the principle confirmed
in Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. ...Finally, it is a well-established principle that the inactivity of a domain
name can support a claim of bad faith (Telstra Corp. v. Nuclear Marshmallows,
supra; Yahoo! Inc. v. ...
2005-10-26 - 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
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. ...See Edmunds.com v. Ultimate Search, Inc., supra.
The Panel finds the Respondent's argument that he has derived no benefit from the monetization of the disputed domain name unpersuasive. ...
2009-07-03 - 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
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. ...
2011-10-06 - Case Details
See Pharmacia & Upjohn Company v. Moreonline,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0134 (“The mere registration, or earlier registration, does not establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”); National Football League Properties, Inc. and Chargers Football Company v. One Sex Entertainment Co., a/k/a chargergirls.net,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0118; N.C.P. Marketing Group, Inc. v. Entredomains,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0387.
The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, and domain name . ...
2021-02-05 - Case Details
See Oki Data Americas Inc. v. ASD Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0903. The addition of a generic term does not serve to distinguish the domain name from the trademark, but may reinforce the association of the complainant's trademark with a domain name. ...DTV2006-0001),
- the Respondent has already been involved in several domain name disputes (see Newcastle Permanent Building Society Limited v. Pluto Domain Services Private Limited,
WIPO Case No. ...
2009-03-18 - 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
D2013-0150; RapidShare AG, Christian Schmid v. InvisibleRegistration.com, domain Admin,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1059). Likewise, the Domain Name is virtually identical to Complainants' domain name . ...The Complainant further claims: "The disputed domain name has been registered in the gTLD <.holiday>. The gTLD used for the registration of a domain name has no influence on the assessment of the similarity between the domain names and the Complainant's trademarks merely because it is necessary for the registration of the domain name itself (IndiaMART InterMESH Limited v. ...
2015-04-17 - Case Details
The Panel finds it most likely that the Respondent selected the disputed domain name with the intention to take advantage of the Complainant’s reputation by registering a domain name fully containing the Complainant’s trademark and trade name with the intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain (e.g.,Carrefour SA v. ...Therefore, this Panel has no doubt that the Respondent positively knew or should have known that the disputed domain name consisted of the Complainant’s trademark when he registered the disputed domain name. Registration of the disputed domain name in awareness of the reputed ACCENTURE mark and in the absence of rights or legitimate interests in this case amounts to registration in bad faith (see, e.g., Banca Mediolanum S.p.A. v. ...
2021-05-19 - Case Details
Complainant submits that the aforesaid circumstances together with the lack of rights or legitimate interests of Respondent in the disputed domain name lead to the conclusion that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith (see Produits Berger v. ...Such use is not a bona fide use of the disputed domain name (see, The American Automobile Association, Inc. v. Jack Holder, NAF Claim No. 1227171; Florida Department of Management Services v. ...
2013-03-04 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark ACCOR.
The disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s company name and trademark ACCOR in its
entirety, which previous panels have considered to be “well-known” or “famous” (Accor v. ...Farouk Systems, Inc. v. LMW, WIPO Case
No. D2009-1658).
The disputed domain name reproduces entirely the trademark ACCOR combined with the word “jobs”. ...
2022-09-28 - Case Details
The Respondent is Asia Ventures, Inc, Hong Kong, SAR of China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with IARegistry.com, South Carolina, United States of America.
3. ...D2001-0015, Société
Générale and Fimat International Banque v Lebanon Index/La France
DN and Elie Khouri, WIPO Case No. D2002-0760.
B. Does the Respondent Have Rights or Legitimate Interests in the domain name?
...
2003-10-24 - Case Details
D2006-0240 where the “deletion of letter ‘s’ in domain name was found not to alter the confusing similarity between the domain name and complainant’s marks SUPERCLUBS BREEZES, in Hershey Foods Corporation and Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery Corporation v. ...D2003-0841 where the “deletion of the letter ‘s’ in domain name confusingly similar to complainant’s domain name” and in Pop Smear, Inc. v. ...
2008-05-27 - 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
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark BRIXMOR, as the disputed domain name incorporates the mark in its entirety (see section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0; see also Alfred Dunhill, Inc. v. ...The addition of the gTLD “.sucks” 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 the first element of the Policy (see CARACOLITO S SAS v. ...
2021-08-16 - Case Details
D2007-0077, NBC Universal Inc. v. Szk.com).
In addition, as will be discussed below, the Respondent does not make any use of the disputed domain name presently since the disputed domain name is inactive. ...D2009-0242, L'oreal v. Chenxiansheng). All aforementioned circumstances confirm that the disputed domain name is used in bad faith.
...
2017-12-06 - Case Details
The number of third party domain name registrations comprising the trade mark LEGO in combination with other words has skyrocketed the last years (as an indication, please see e.g., Lego Juris A/S v. ...Consequently, the Panel draws the conclusion that Respondent knew of Complainant, its products and its trademarks prior to and after the registration of the Domain Name and has been using the Domain Name in bad faith.
Furthermore, previous UDRP panels have determined that incorporating a widely-known trademark, such as the Complainant’s LEGO Trademark as a domain name is a clear indication of bad faith (CaixaD´Estalvis I Pensions de Barcelona (“La Caixa”) v. ...
2013-02-22 - Case Details
Several panels in the past accepted evidence that an offer to sell the domain
name may be established through the Whois database. See AT&T Corp. v.
Randy Thompson, WIPO Case No. ...D2001-0300; MatchNet plc. v. MAC Trading, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0205. In the present case, the Respondent’s contact information
in the Whois database (domain for sale etvtelevision@hotmail.com 111.221.444,
domain locations, p.o.box, Nassau Ns 110100, Bahamas, of Bahamas) is an indication
of the Respondent’s intent to sell the domain name. ...
2004-03-23 - Case Details