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
v) The Complainant thus submits that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...D2001-1367; Royal Bank of Canada v. RBC Bank,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0672; and Allianz AG v. Marian Dinu,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0318.
In this case, the Panel finds that the “banca” component of the disputed domain name is descriptive, and that the dominant component of the disputed domain name is “intesasanpaolo”, which is also the corporate name of the Complainant.
...
2015-03-12 - Case Details
See, among others, i.a., Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris 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”) and Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B. v. ...D2006-0696; HSBC Finance Corporation v. Clear Blue Sky Inc. and Domain Manager,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0062)”.
In view of the above, the Panel finds that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
7. ...
2010-10-14 - Case Details
It is well established that the specific top level domain name is not an element of distinctiveness that can be taken into consideration when evaluating the identity and similarity of a complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name (see Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...Previous panels have found that a sophisticated domainer who regularly registers domain names for use as pay-per-click landing pages cannot be “wilfully blind” to whether a particular domain name may violate trademark rights (see Media General Communications, Inc. v. ...
2008-12-09 - Case Details
The
“absolut” part of the domain name forms the characteristic
part of the domain name. In the view of the Panel, the disputed domain name
is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The registration
and use of the domain name constitutes a risk of confusion as users
of the Internet would consider the domain name to be part of what has been called
the “ABSOLUT ‘family’ of domain
names” (V&V Vin&Sprit AB v. ...
2005-10-21 - Case Details
Furthermore, based on an assessment of the evidence on record, the Panel finds there is no indication that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name or that it has used the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services: Malayan Banking Berhad v. ...As a preliminary matter, Respondent’s acquisition of the subject domain name constitutes registration for the purpose of the Policy: MC Enterprises v. Mark Segal,
WIPO Case No. ...
2014-08-12 - 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
See Nicole Kidman v. John Zuccarini, d/b/a Cupcake Party,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1415 (the only difference between the domain name and the trademark is the purposeful misspelling, created by the addition of an “h”); Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. v. ...D2000-1449 (the domain name differs from the mark merely by the addition of the letter “l” in the domain name, and such addition does not prevent the domain name from being considered virtually identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark); Alta Vista Co. v. ...
2008-12-29 - 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. ...
2020-03-02 - Case Details
An example of such permissible use is, where domain names consisting of dictionary or common words or phrases support posted PPC links genuinely related to the generic meaning of the domain name at issue (see, for instance, Trade Me Limited v. ...Even if such advertising links served up to visitors on the website associated with the disputed domain name are automated, the Respondent remains responsible for such use (see also Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. ...
2017-01-16 - Case Details
D2001-0015; and Societe Generale and Fimat International Banque v. Lebanon Index La France DN and Ehe Khouri,
WIPO Case No. D2002-6760. In these cases, it has been held that the addition of a term, such as, “group”, “parfum”, sports” etc., in the disputed domain name does nothing to distinguish the domain name from the complainant’s trademark.
...The Respondent registered the disputed domain name for the sole purpose of creating confusion and misleading the general public.
In support of its contentions, the Complainant relies on the decisions in the cases of Pharmacia & Upjohn Company v. ...
2013-11-07 - Case Details
See also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. MacLeod, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0662 (first element of Policy is satisfied where
domain name wholly incorporates complainant's mark). ...Pursuant to Paragraph 4(b)(iii) & (iv),
this constitutes evidence of bad faith registration and use of the disputed
domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(iii). See Paule Ka v. Paula
Korenek, WIPO Case No. D2003-0453;
Bodegas Vega Sicilia, S.A. v. ...
2004-06-04 - Case Details
Bad faith on the part of the Respondents is to be inferred
from using a hyphen as a device to obtain what is to all intents and purposes
a domain name which is identical to Claimant’s service mark and earlier registered
domain name." SeekAmerica Networks Inc. v. ...Beverages and More, Inc. v. Glenn Sober Mgmt., ICANN Case No.
AF-0092.
6.16 It has also been held that the use of a counter at the web site to which
the domain name resolves without other content is tantamount to an offer to
sell the domain name. ...
2000-05-24 - Case Details
The Respondent has previously been involved in three domain name cases where the transfer of a domain name to the respective complainant was ordered in each case (see American Airlines, Inc. v. ...Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) v. Domain Hostmaster,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1800);
- transfer of the disputed domain name without any finding other that it being inappropriate to issue any decision other than simply ordering the transfer of the domain name (e.g., The Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. ...
2009-04-15 - Case Details
Numerous decisions have held that "typosquatting" is not
a legitimate or bona fide use of a domain name (See, e.g., WIPO
Case No. D2000-1495, America On-Line, Inc. v. Zuccarini, of January 22, 2001;
NAF Case No. 0007000095233, Cabela's Inc. v. ...D2000-0010,
Home Interior & Gifts, Inc. v. Home Interiors, of March 7, 2000:"[U]se
of a counter at the website to which the domain name resolves without other
content is tantamount to an offer to sell the domain name...
2003-03-28 - Case Details
In light of previous UDRP decisions, the Panel considers that the mere addition of a letter in the domain name, such as “t” in this case, does not alleviate the likelihood of confusion. In fact, the distinctive element of the Respondent's domain name remains Complainant's trademark and both a visual and aural comparison between the trademark and the domain name supports the assertion that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark (Sanofi-aventis v. ...Such an adjunction is due to the current technical requirements of the domain name system. Therefore, this inclusion should not be taken into account when evaluating the identity or similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant's trademark (New York Life Insurance Company v. ...
2009-08-24 - Case Details
In the last six months, Respondent has been involved in numerous domain name disputes. The following decisions, involving Respondent have issued ordering the transfer of the disputed domain name: Artful Holdings LLC v. ...As a result, the registration of the disputed domain name must be considered as a registration in bad faith. See Artful Holdings LLC v. BWI Domain Manager a/k/a Domain Manager, NAF Case No. ...
2009-03-12 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have ruled that in appropriate circumstances, bad faith is established where a complainant’s trademark has been shown to be well known or in wide use at the time of registering a domain name (see e.g. Caesars World, Inc. v. Forum LLC.,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0517; The Gap, Inc. v. Deng Youqian,
WIPO Case No. ...The Polygenix Group Co.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0163; Legacy Health System v. Nijat Hassanov,
WIPO Case No. D2008-1708).
Furthermore, the evidence of bad faith is further strengthened by the fact that the Domain Name resolves to a website listing other domain names for sale. ...
2018-08-17 - Case Details
Furthermore, the Panel also agrees with the finding of previous UDRP panels that the use of a mark in its entirety together with a geographic term in a domain name creates a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark. See e.g., Playboy Enterprises International Inc. v. Joao Melancia,
WIPO Case No. D2006-1106; AT&T Corp. v. WorldclassMedia.com,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0553; Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. CredoNic.com / Domain Name for Sale,
WIPO Case No. ...
2020-02-19 - Case Details
iv) The Complainant submits that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
(v) The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
...Besides, the Panel notes that many UDRP panels have held that bad faith use of a domain name by a respondent may result from the fact its good faith use is in no way plausible (see Audi AG v. ...
2021-04-06 - Case Details