Dublin) Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0026 (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of the complainant combined with a generic word or term). ...Sys., Inc. v. Hu, NAF Claim No 157321 (finding that the respondent’s use of the domain name to offer goods competing with the complainant’s illustrates the respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain name, evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv)). ...
2013-01-24 - Case Details
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Without more, the registration of a domain name does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests in that domain name (see Gold Medal Travel Group Plc v. ...D2004-0128) and offering to sell a disputed domain name for valuable consideration which exceeds the out-of-pocket costs associated with that domain name (see Central Garden & Pet Company v. ...
2017-07-13 - Case Details
Even so, 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. ...D2008-0495 (“1” is a non-distinctive suffix”); Woot, Inc. v. KA LUN KWOK,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0167 (transferring the domain name ); F. Hoffmann-La Roche v. ...
2013-09-20 - Case Details
D2000-1483). Moreover as the website under the disputed domain name is inactive and the fact that the disputed domain name is held passively does not prejudge a legitimate use of that domain is deemed a bad faith indicator (Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. v. ...The adjunction of the gTLD "online" in the disputed domain name is typically ignored (see Siemens AG v Gokhan Yagci,
WIPO Case No. D2015-1690).
The Panel concludes that disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's trademarks and therefore the condition of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is fulfilled.
...
2016-03-15 - Case Details
Such use does not of itself give rise to the Respondent having any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. (See Mr. Olympia, LLC, American Media Operations, Inc., International Federation of BodyBuilders v. ...Evidence provided by the Complainant shows that use of the disputed domain name is commercial, and that it constitutes an intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers (See Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. ...
2011-06-27 - Case Details
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. ...the Panel concludes that the Respondent's passive holding of the disputed domain name satisfies the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, that the disputed domain name "is being used in bad faith" (see Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. ...
2015-11-16 - 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
On the issue of registration, the Complainants contend that it was registered in bad faith because the Disputed Domain name “is derived from Complainants' family name and has no pornographic or explicit connotation” (citing Caledonia Motor Group Limited v. ...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. ...
2010-07-16 - Case Details
As the dominant feature of the domain name is the Complainant’s marks CARREFOUR and CARREFOUR PASS, the adjunction of the expression “ssl4” is insufficient to avoid confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademarks (Pandora A/S v. ...Moreover, Panels have come to the conclusion that hyphenation in domain names is “insufficient to distinguish the Respondent’s domain names from the Complainant’s mark because the dominant portion of each domain name is the Complainant’s [trademark]” (Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba dba Toshiba Corporation v. ...
2020-02-24 - 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. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale,
WIPO Case No. ...Match.com, LP v. Bill Zag and NWLAWS.ORG,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0230. The Policy provides a remedy only in cases where a complainant proves that the domain name “has been registered and is being used in bad faith”.
...
2009-09-02 - Case Details
This “click-through revenue” is then ordinarily split between the domain name parking service provider and the owner of the domain name (see, for example, Owens Corning v. ...v) It is reasonable to infer from the above that “Belize Domain WHOIS Service” is a name used in relation to the directNIC.com WhoIs privacy service.
...
2009-04-27 - Case Details
See Moncler S.p.A. v. Bestinfo,
WIPO Case No. D2004-1049 (“the Panel notes that the respondent’s name is ‘Bestinfo’ and that it can therefore not be ‘commonly known by the Domain Name.’”)
...Therefore, the Domain Name is used for commercial purposes and paragraph 4(c)(iii) is not applicable. See Overstock.com, Inc. v. ...
2021-05-05 - Case Details
Elena Shaffer,
WIPO Case No. D2015-0810; Sodexo v. Li Li,
WIPO Case No. D2015-1018, among others).
That the term “soddexo” included in the disputed domain name is very similar to the Complainant’s trademark and company name SODEXO.
...D2006-0073.
The addition of the country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) “.co” to the disputed domain name is a technical requirement of the Domain Name System, and therefore has no legal significance in the present case (see CARACOLITO S SAS v. ...
2020-07-03 - Case Details
See also Ansell Healthcare Products Inc. v. Australian Therapeutics Supplies Pty, Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0110, stating “The incorporation of a Complainant’s well-known trademark in the registered Domain Name is considered sufficient to find the Domain Name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark”.
...In addition, the Panel is persuaded that the Respondent has used false information to register the Domain Name, which grants the Respondent no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. See Sanofi v. ...
2021-10-13 - Case Details
It is also 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. ...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 name monetization unconnected with any bona fide supply of goods or services by the Respondent. ...
2011-10-07 - Case Details
It is also 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. ...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 name monetization unconnected with any bona fide supply of goods or services by the Respondent. ...
2014-12-29 - Case Details
Furthermore the inclusion of the gTLD suffix “.com” does not avoid confusing similarity between the domain name and the trademark (AT&T Corp. v. William Gormally,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0758; Accor v. Lee Dong Youn,
WIPO Case No. ...Mere registration of the disputed domain name may not of itself confer rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name (Terroni Inc. v. ...
2013-12-06 - Case Details
Once the generic “.name” top level domain removed, the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade marks (Banca di Roma S.p.A. v. unasi Inc. a/k/a Domaincar,
WIPO Case No. ...The Respondent may not therefore claim ignorance of the existence of the trademarks at the time of the domain name registration on June 19, 2006. The above circumstances therefore suggest the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith (Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A v. ...
2009-06-22 - Case Details
Name Redacted,
WIPO Case No. D2018-0063;and Accor v. Pierre Masson,
WIPO Case No. D2018-1645.
The Complainant states that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. ...The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant when it registered the disputed domain name and the Panel cannot find any plausible circumstances in which the Respondent could legitimately use the disputed domain name (see also Microsoft Corporation v. ...
2021-04-08 - Case Details
The addition of generic or descriptive terms does not serve to distinguish a domain name from registered marks. See Banconsumer Service, Inc. v. Mary Langthorne, Financial Advisor,
WIPO Case No. ...Thus, it is highly unlikely that the Respondent chose to register the disputed domain name randomly with no knowledge of the Marks. See Barney's Inc. v. BNY Bulletin Board,
WIPO Case No. ...
2014-08-15 - Case Details