Arb. Forum 2001); see also Ode v. Intership Ltd., D2001-0074
(WIPO May 1, 2001) (under ICANN rules, a trademark must predate the domain name.)
...Respondent has the right to register
the subject domain name, comingattractions.com based upon the generic usage
of the term ‘coming attractions.’ Coming Attractions, Ltd. v. ...
2001-10-11 - 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. ...D2000-0275; Société Air France v. RBlue,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0290.
In this case, apart from the country code top level domain, the disputed domain name consists of the Complainant's trademark FOX and the suffix “tv”. ...
2009-12-29 - 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 the top level designation used as part of a domain name should typically be disregarded (see Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2015-11-26 - Case Details
See, Dr. Michael Crichton v. Alberta Hot Rods,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0872 (“Crichton”).
Complainant further states that previous UDRP panels have held that a domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark when the domain name incorporates the mark in its entirety. ...See, e.g. Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. bingbing chen,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1524 (November 1, 2011) (“the Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name in selling goods under the SWAROVKSI Mark without authorization from the Complainant is a sign of the Respondent’s bad faith use of the Disputed Domain Name”) and Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. ...
2012-09-18 - Case Details
The Weatherman, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0211; R.T. Quaife
Engineering v. Luton, WIPO Case No. D2000-1201;
Easy Heat, Inc. v. Shelter Prods., WIPO
Case No. D2001-0344.
- The Respondent must not try to corner the market in all domain names, thus
depriving the trademark owner of reflecting its own mark in a domain name. ...Pursuant to Paragraph 4(b)(iv), this constitutes
evidence of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name for purposes
of Paragraph 4(a)(iii). See Paula Ka v. Paula Korenek, WIPO
Case No. D2003-0453; Bodegas Vega Sicilia, S.A. v. ...
2004-05-25 - Case Details
It is well established that the specific top level domain, such as “.com”, “.net” or “.travel”, does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar (see Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...Having found bad faith registration, the Panel easily concludes that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in bad faith. The same facts that support the finding that the Respondent lacks rights to or a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name also support a finding that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith (see, e.g., Barnes and Noble College Bookstores, Inc. v. ...
2008-08-04 - Case Details
The use of the Domain Name for an illegal activity such as constructing an e-mail composition containing the Domain Name for deceiving purposes cannot confer rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent (L’ Oréal v. ...As Complainant demonstrated, Respondent used the Domain Name, on the same day as the day it was registered, to create an e-mail address and send a fraudulent e-mail to one of Complainant’ s employees (Arla Foods Amba v. ...
2018-05-30 - Case Details
D2006-0675; Ford Motor Co. v. Knuhtsen,
WIPO Case No. DBIZ2002-00183.
It is true that the Domain Name resolves to an inactive webpage. ...Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, supra.
The Panel considers the evidence of record sufficient to establish that Respondent both registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith in this case. ...
2015-08-03 - Case Details
The Respondent is Domain Active Pty. Ltd., Clayfield, Queensland, Australia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Fabulous.com.
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").
...
2004-01-09 - 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
Please check back for an update
soon”, which shows that the Respondent has failed to make a legitimate use of the disputed domain name,
which in turn evidences a lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name (citing
LeadsMarket.com LLC v. ...The addition of the gTLD “.com” to the disputed domain name constitutes a technical requirement of the
Domain Name System (“DNS”). Thus, it has no legal significance in assessing identity or confusing similarity
in the present case (see CARACOLITO S SAS v. ...
2025-08-19 - Case Details
Furthermore, the Complainant argues that some panels have held in other UDRP cases where the Complainant was a party as well, that a domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark when the domain name incorporates the mark in its entirety, see Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. cao zhiming,
WIPO Case No. ...D2011-0972).
In addition, the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) “.com” suffix in the disputed domain name does not affect the determination that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the SWAROVSKI trademarks in which the Complainant has trademark rights (see also Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. ...
2014-02-05 - Case Details
Before
the Domain Name was registered, the Respondent did not carry on any business
and was not commonly known by a domain name or any other name consisting of
SOFITEL. ...See ACCOR, Société
Anonyme à Directoire et Conseil de Surveillance v. SEOCHO, WIPO
Case No. D2002-0517 (August 12, 2002)).
6.2 Does the Respondent Have Rights or Legitimate Interests in the Domain Name
?
...
2002-09-06 - Case Details
This does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services by Respondent. See Sanrio Company Ltd v. Neric Lau,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0172 (interests in the domain name not legitimate where there is no authorized association with trademark owner); Telstra Corporation v. ...Complainant's widely known DEUTSCHE POST trademark clearly was used in registering the Domain Name by someone who has no apparent relationship to Complainant or to the mark.
In DHL Operations B.V. v. ...
2008-08-21 - 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
Privacy Hero Inc. / Honey Salt ltd, pat honey salt,
WIPO Case No. D2020-2836, for the domain name ; Cargotec Oyj, Cargotec Patenter AB v. Honey Salt Ltd., CAC Case 103423, for the domain name ; and, Naos v. ...Honey Salt Ltd., CAC Case 103423, for the domain name ; Naos v. Honey Salt Ltd., CAC Case No.103142, for the domain name ; and, Capsugel Belgium NV v. ...
2021-03-15 - Case Details
In fact, the Domain Name is not currently being used for any purpose
whatsoever, being presently kept “under construction” (see Revlon
Consumer Products Corporation v. ...D2003-0022; Nokia, Inc.
v. B. B. de Boer, WIPO Case No. D2000-1397);
(ii)Respondent has not conducted any legitimate commercial or non-commercial activity in connection with the Domain Name;
(iii) Respondent has submitted no response and therefore has provided no evidence whatsoever of any actual or contemplated good faith use of the Domain Name;
(iv) Respondent has failed to provide evidence of his rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name; and
(v) it is difficult to imagine any circumstance in which Respondent could use the Domain Name as a web site address without infringing Complainant’s trademark, given that Internet users would inevitably be misled into believing that there is a sort of connection between the Domain Name and Complainant’s product VIAGRA.
...
2004-09-29 - Case Details
See also 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).
...See also 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
It is also well-established that the omission in a domain name of a single letter typically is 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
D2005-0758, and Accor v. Lee Dong Youn,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0705).
The disputed domain name features a generic word added to the trademark, which is “pneumatiky”. ...By copying the “Bibendum” or “Michelin man” logo, Respondent uses the domain name in bad faith (La Française des Jeux v. Elliott Stambouli,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0345; Mrs. Agnès Troublé v. ...
2010-01-26 - Case Details