As decided in other UDRP cases, "the test of identity or confusing similarity under the Policy is confined to a comparison of the disputed domain name and the trademark alone". See LEGO Juris A/S v. Name Administrator, Hong Kong Domains, LLC.
...On a direct comparison, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's KOÇ trademark in spite of such minor variation. As held in Koç Holding A.S. v. ...
2015-07-21 - Case Details
D2002-0002; and Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha d/b/a Toyota Motor Corporation v. S&S Enterprises Ltd,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0802.
The addition of generic terms like “us” to a trademark, within a domain name, does not add distinctiveness to said name, and does not alter the fact that such domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark (see Bank of America v. ...To carry into effect the similarity analysis, a panel need not take into account the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.com”, because such gTLD is necessary in a domain name. See Ahmanson Land Company v. Vince Curtis,
WIPO Case No. ...
2009-04-03 - Case Details
Weber-Stephen Products Co. v. Armitage Hardware, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0187. See Report of the WIPO Internet Domain Name Process,
paragraphs 169 and 170. ...See Asia Pacific Breweries Limited v. Chris
Kwan, WIPO Case No. D2003-0920. The Respondent
claims never to have used the domain name, alleging that the domain name has
been parked awaiting a propitious moment for the launching of the aborted venture
capital project for which the Respondent claims to have registered the domain
name in 1999.
...
2006-02-28 - Case Details
Allocation Network GmbH v. Steve Gregory, WIPO
Domain Name Dispute Case D2000-0016, Car Toys, Inc. v. Informa Unlimited,
Inc., National Arbitration Forum Domain Name Dispute Case FA0093682, see
Annex E; General Machine Products Co., Inc. v. ...Shlomi (Salomon) Levi, WIPO
Domain Name Dispute Case D2000-0040, see Annex G; Telaxis Communications
Corp. v. William E. Minkle, WIPO Domain Name Dispute
Case D2000-0005, see Annex J; Unitil Resources, Inc. v. ...
2000-05-30 - Case Details
See Lockheed Martin
Corporation. v. Dan Parisi, WIPO Case
No. D2000-1015; The Salvation Army v. Info-Bahn, Inc., WIPO
Case No. D2001-0463. 1
The disputed domain name contains no additional terms that would distinguish
it from the Complainant’s service marks, and for this reason the Panel
concludes that persons viewing the disputed domain name likely would think that
the domain name is in some way connected to the Complainant. ...See, Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. Under Telstra,
passive holding of a domain name can be considered as bad faith where it
is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use
of the disputed domain name that would not be illegitimate. ...
2005-07-14 - Case Details
Adding a generic or descriptive word to a mark in a domain name also fails to detract from confusing similarity. See Fitness Anywhere, Inc. v. Simon Onil, NAF Claim No. 1372345 (finding confusing similarity between the domain name and the complainant’s TRX and SUSPENSION TRAINING marks, even though the domain name added the generic word “sale” and removed the word “training”); Philip Morris USA Inc. v. ...D2013-1087 (finding confusing similarity between the domain name and the complainant’s MARLBORO mark, even though the domain name added the “generic descriptive” word “team”); Tommy Bahama Group, Inc. v. ...
2014-02-10 - Case Details
See, Ansell Healthcare Products Inc. v. Australian Therapeutics Supplies Ply, Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0110 (“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”) and Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. ...The Respondent has never been known by the disputed domain name and has no legitimate interest in the SWAROVSKI Marks or the name “Swarovski”. See Marriott International, Inc. v. ...
2012-02-29 - Case Details
Addition of ".com" does nothing to distinguish the disputed domain name from the TINDER trademarks (Prudent Publishing Co. v. TRFCN, Inc., supra; Microsoft Corp. v. ...A mere registration of a domain name does not give the owner a right or a legitimate interest in the domain name itself (Terroni Inc. v. ...
2017-07-12 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have established that knowledge of Complainant’s intellectual property rights, including trademarks, at the time of registration of the disputed domain name proves bad faith registration (Alstom v. Domain Investments LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0287; NBC Universal Inc. v. ...Moreover, it is likely that Respondent registered the domain name to prevent Complainant from using its trademark in the disputed domain name. According to former panel, this type of conduct constitutes evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use (L’oreal v. ...
2018-07-10 - 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. ...D2007-0371 as authority for the proposition that the “use of a domain name in connection with a domain parking service is usually considered bad faith use”. However, the Panel does not understand either of these cases to be suggesting that the use of a domain name parking service of itself involves use in bad faith.
3 As to which see Sanofi-aventis v. ...
2008-10-06 - Case Details
AltaVista Company v. Mr. James A. Maggs, NAF Case No. FA 0095545 (2000).
There is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name, that Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use Complainant’s service mark in the Domain Name or that Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name. ...John Zuccarini d/b/a Music Wave and the Domain Name RaveClub Berlin,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0440; America Online, Inc. v. Anson Chan,
WIPO Case No. ...
2007-07-10 - Case Details
D2005-0517; and PepsiCo, Inc. v. Domain Admin,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0435).
Consequently, the Panel finds that the incorporation of the VALERO and the VALERO ENERGY trademarks in their entirety as part of the Domain Name is an indication that the Respondent registered the Domain Name in order to unfairly benefit from the Complainants’ trademarks.
...The Panel concurs with the understanding of several other UDRP panels that passive holding of a domain name can amount to a respondent acting in bad faith. The concept of passive holding may apply even in the event of mere “parking” by a third party of a domain name (see Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2015-09-15 - Case Details
That the Complainant has been involved in another domain name dispute against the Respondent, concerning the registration of the domain name (and cites SODEXO v. ...D2017-2211).
The addition of the generic Top-Level-Domain (“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 SAP SE v. ...
2020-07-02 - Case Details
- That the first person to register a generic domain name is considered to have legitimate interest over it (and cites, inter alia, Target Software Solution GmbH v. ...It entirely matches Complainant's trademark CLUB DE SUSCRIPTORES EL TIEMPO (except for the design element, which cannot be incorporated into a domain name). Respondent did not choose a domain name like , which is clearly generic (see Admiral Insurance Services Limited v. ...
2009-05-01 - Case Details
The Panel concludes that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith. Complainant’s MARLBORO trademarks are well-known internationally. Because the MARLBORO mark had been widely used since 1883 and registered at the time of the Domain Name registration by Respondent, the Panel finds it more likely than not that Respondent had Complainant’s mark in mind when registering this Domain Name (Tudor Games, Inc. v. ...The non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith (Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,
WIPO Case No. ...
2019-01-09 - Case Details
See Research In Motion Limited v. Dustin Picov, WIPO
Case No. D2001-0492; 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 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).
...
2004-10-22 - Case Details
Henry Chan,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0218; Associated Newspapers Limited v. Domain Manager, NAF Claim No. FA 201976 (“evidence of bad faith . . . [where] the domain name provided links to Complainant's competitors and Respondent presumably benefited commercially from the misleading domain name by receiving ‘click-through-fees.”); American University v. ...FA 208629 (bad faith registration and use of a domain name incorporating another's mark with the intent to deceive Internet users in regard to the source or affiliation of the domain name); Luck's Music Library v. ...
2009-08-05 - Case Details
LEGO Juris A/S v. Name Administrator, Hong Kong Domains, LLC.,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0924. On a direct comparison, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s KOÇ trademark in spite of such minor variation. ...The Polygenix Group Co.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0163; Pepsico, Inc. v. Domain Admin,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0435.
In view of the circumstances of the instant case, the Panel finds that Respondent was undoubtedly aware of the existence of Complainant’s KOÇ trademark and Complainant’s trade name when Respondent registered the disputed domain name. ...
2015-07-22 - Case Details
D2002-0002, and Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha d/b/a Toyota Motor Corporation v. S&S Enterprises Ltd,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0802.
The addition of generic terms (e.g. “trading”) to a trademark, within a domain name, does not add distinctiveness to said name, and does not alter the fact that such domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark (See Bank of America v. ...It is clear to this Panel that Respondent has used the domain name at hand as a tool for phishing. See National Association of Software and Service Companies v. ...
2009-04-23 - Case Details
The Respondent has engaged in similar conduct in respect of the domain name , which conflicts with the Complainant’s registered trademark STARFALL: See Pancil LLC v. ...On its own initiative, the Panel accessed the website using the disputed domain name. (This practice has been adopted by numerous panels: see Corinthians Licenciamentos LTDA v. ...
2007-06-12 - Case Details