The Respondent is Domain Drop S.A., Charleston, Saint Kitts and Nevis.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with DomainDoorman, LLC.
3. ...The Respondent has often been found to be a serial cybersquatter, the Panel in Western Health Advantage, Inc. v. Domain Drop S.A.,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1111, finding that the Respondent “is engaged in a pattern of preclusive and abusive domain name registrations within the meaning of Policy paragraph 4((b)(ii).” ...
2007-10-31 - Case Details
D2003-0569; and, Swatch Ltd. v. Peter Kaeppeli,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0956).
The relevant part of the disputed domain name is “virgin galactic”, as the added gTLD – being a required element of every domain name – is irrelevant when assessing whether or not a mark is identical or confusingly similar. ...Therefore, the mere addition of the suffix “token”– referring to a digital currency – does not prevent the finding of confusing similarity between Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name (Sanofi v. Sarah Plaschg, Astara Immobilien GmbH,
WIPO Case No. D2020-2632; Facebook Inc. v. ...
2022-02-28 - Case Details
Eric Langlois,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0067).
Therefore, the disputed domain name is likely to be associated by the public to the Complainant and its activities (see Carrefour v. ...D2012-0080; Hermes International v. Fuzhoudongchen Tech Inc,
WIPO Case No. D2011-0542).
The addition of the ccTLD “.co” to the disputed domain name is a technical requirement of the Domain Name System (DNS), and therefore has no legal significance (see section 1.11. of the WIPO Overview 3.0; see also CARACOLITO S SAS v. ...
2021-02-11 - Case Details
D2006-0483, where the Panel found that “Absent some contrary evidence from Respondent, passive holding of a Domain Name does not constitute ‘legitimate non-commercial or fair use' ”. See Euromarket Designs, Inc. v. Domain For Sale VMI,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1195 (noting that respondent was a passive holder of the domain name , in that “the domain name does not resolve to a site” and ruling that, “[g]iven that the domain name has been registered since mid-March 2000, it is fair to infer that the Respondent has not made, nor taken any preparatory steps to make, any legitimate use of the domain name”); Netcentives, Inc. v. ...
2009-05-18 - Case Details
The Domain Name incorporates the said trademark of Complainant in its entirety. This is sufficient to establish confusing similarity (Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...The Panel concludes that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith. Because the MICHELIN mark is so well-known and had been widely used 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 (Parfums Christian Dior v. ...
2018-11-26 - 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. ...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 is confusingly similar to the registered mark of a complainant (see: National Trust for Historic Preservation v. ...
2012-01-04 - Case Details
D2004-0272; Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Patrick Ory,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0098 (“Respondent has no rights nor legitimate interests in the Domain Name given there exists no relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent that would give rise to any license, permission or authorization by which the Respondent could own or use the Domain Name.”); Sanrio Company Ltd v. ...D2008-0627 (respondent's use of confusingly similar domain name for pay-per-click website deemed bad faith registration and use); Busy Body, Inc. v. Fitness Outlet Inc.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2008-10-14 - Case Details
Luke Skywalker, X Wing,
WIPO Case No. DCO2010-0019 and in Cointreau v. Erwin Kurniawan, THIS DOMAIN IS FOR SALE,
WIPO Case No. DME2019-0004).
The Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
...D2016-1708; and Tonino Lamborghini s.p.a. Mr. Tonino Lamborghini v. Samvel R Yusufiants,
WIPO Case No. D2017-1112).
The addition of the gTLD “.com” 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. ...
2020-09-03 - Case Details
Mere amending of one letter to a complainant’s mark does not adequately distinguish a domain name from the mark pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). See Wal -Mart Stores, Inc. v. Gerry Senker,
WIPO Case No. ...D2009-0705; America Online, Inc. v. Anson Chan,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0004.
As well the inclusion of the gTLD suffix “.com” does not avoid confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and trademark. ...
2012-06-19 - Case Details
Furthermore, the addition of the generic Top-Level domain ("gTLD") ".com" is not an element of distinctiveness that is generally taken into consideration when evaluating the identity and similarity of the Complainant trademark and the Domain Name, because gTLDs 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).
Moreover, it is well-settled case law that the practice of typosquatting may in itself be evidence of a bad faith registration of a domain name (see, e.g., Longs Drug Stores California, Inc. v. ...
2015-11-24 - Case Details
The Complainant’s trademark rights have been recognized also by UDRP panels in a number of domain name decisions between 2006 and 2016, for instance, KPMG International v. Manila Industries, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. ...D2013-1043).
Furthermore, the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” in the disputed domain name does not affect the determination that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the KPMG trademark in which the Complainant has rights (see also Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. ...
2017-08-28 - Case Details
Furthermore, the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD) “.info” is not an element of distinctiveness that can be taken into consideration when evaluating the identity and similarity of the Complainants’ trademarks and the Domain Name, because the gTLDs 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).
Consequently, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered the Domain Name in bad faith.
...
2017-04-05 - Case Details
See Rollerblade, Inc. v. 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. Peter Ojo, WIPO
Case No. D2000-1770 “The accused domain name
is legally identical to Complainant’s trade name CHEVY CHASE BANK”)
and Ferrari S.p.A. v. ...
2007-02-09 - Case Details
Furthermore, in the Panel’s view, the use of a proxy registration service to avoid disclosing the name and contact details of the real party owner of the disputed domain name, is also consistent with an inference of bad faith in registering and using the disputed domain name (see Fifth Third Bancorp v. ...This, in the Panel’s view, justifies a finding that the disputed domain name has been used in bad faith” (see Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. DomainsByProxy.com / Plessers Appliances,
WIPO Case No. ...
2013-02-20 - Case Details
See Quester Group, Inc. v. Domain Capital,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0594.
The disputed domain name is virtually identical to the Complainant’s registered trademarks and registered domain names. ...Tellus B.V. v. Mr. Oren Nehoray,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1115. The Respondent purchased the disputed domain name because of its descriptive value.
...
2011-03-07 - Case Details
Pancil LLC v. Domain Deluxe,
WIPO Case No. D2003-1035.
2. According to the case documentation, the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with an employment/phishing scam. ...b. Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. ojk Jerry,
WIPO Case No. D2015-1802 (“Respondent has been using the Domain Name in connection with an employment/phishing scam. ...
2016-11-10 - Case Details
T9102674F from March 1991. In any event, 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 should be disregarded: (see Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2012-09-13 - Case Details
Even if the Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name, the Complainant asserts that it is inconceivable that the Respondent could make a legitimate use of the disputed domain name given the Complainant’s longtime and exclusive use of the MARLBORO marks and the strength of the brand, citing Philip Morris USA Inc. v. ...Nor in the circumstances of this case does the Respondent’s present passive holding of the disputed domain name support any claim of legitimacy. See Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Private, supra; Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2014-05-08 - Case Details
The Respondent is LaPorte Holdings, Los Angeles, California, United States
of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameKing.com.
3. ...Nonetheless, the Complainant must prove the additional requirement that the
domain name “is being used in bad faith” by the Respondent. As was
observed in the now well quoted case with similar facts of Telstra Corporation
Ltd v. ...
2005-02-08 - 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. ...See Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
As previously noted, the Respondent offered no reason for selecting the disputed domain name. ...
2014-03-10 - Case Details