See, e.g., Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Interbase,
Inc., WIPO Case No. D2002-1045 (domain name
identical to the Complainant’s
ROYAL PALM CROWNE PLAZA RESORT hotel name and service mark)”; and Museum
of Science v. ...Such use
is not a bona fide offering of goods and services under Policy paragraph 4(c)(i),
or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name under Policy paragraph
4(c)(iii). See Vapor Blast Mfg. Co. v. R & S Tech., Inc.,
NAF Case FA 96577 (finding that Respondent’s commercial use of the domain
name to confuse and divert Internet traffic is not a legitimate use of the domain
name); see also MSNBC Cable, LLC v. ...
2005-05-12 - Case Details
The Complainant has asserted that there is no relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent,
that it has not granted any authorization, license, or consent to the Respondent to use its trademark
ONLYFANS in the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent has not been commonly known by the
disputed domain name (see Beyoncé Knowles v. ...The consensus view among panels appointed under the Policy is that the use of a domain name for illegal
activity, such as the unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted material, cannot confer rights to, or legitimate
interests in a domain name (see section 2.13 of the WIPO Overview 3.0; see also Self-Portrait IP Limited v.
...
2023-05-25 - Case Details
The Respondent is Jacky Durand, Carrefour Sa of Paris, France.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Tucows Inc. ...In this case, the Domain Name reproduces the Complainant’s trademark CARREFOUR which previous panels have considered to be “well-known” or “famous” (Carrefour v. ...
2018-12-13 - Case Details
Softech Ltd., DNS Administrator (gold),
WIPO Case No. D2007-1699; and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. P Martin,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0323).
The addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.host” to the disputed domain name constitutes a technical requirement of the Domain Name System (“DNS”). ...The case file contains no evidence that demonstrates that the Respondent has used or has made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services (see Valentino S.p.A. v. ...
2021-11-10 - Case Details
The addition of a purely descriptive/generic term to a well-known mark is not enough to prevent confusing similarity between the domain name and the incorporated trademark (see America Online Inc. v. Yetech Communication Inc.,
WIPO Case No. ...Indeed, the Respondent has maintained the website at the disputed domain name despite the Complainant's objections.
Such silence and ongoing cybersquatting are further evidence of the Respondent's bad faith (see Compiere Inc. v. ...
2015-02-18 - Case Details
Further the disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of Complainant’s trademark leading to the presumption that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark (See EAuto LLC v. ...Accordingly, the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith: America Online Inc v. Anson Chan,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0004. ...
2007-09-13 - Case Details
D2005-0694). Adding a generic word to a domain name consequently does not necessarily render the domain name less confusingly similar to the trademark (see, e.g., LEGO Juris A/S v. ...Previous UDRP panels have found that the passive holding of a domain name does not constitute a legitimate use of such domain name that would give rise to a legitimate right or interest in the domain name (see, e.g., Société nationale des télécommunications: Tunisie Telecom v. ...
2016-09-19 - Case Details
D2013-1583).
(ii) The domain name is a coined name which is neither descriptive nor generic and solely used to designate the complainant’s business (Statoil ASA v. ...Aaron Hall, supra; Statoil ASA v. Daniel MacIntyre, Ethical Island, supra).
(iv) The respondent has failed to explain as to why the domain name was chosen (Jupiters Limited v. ...
2016-11-11 - Case Details
Furthermore, the disputed domain name does not currently resolve to any active website; such "passive holding" of the disputed domain name in itself is not capable of creating any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent therein (see, e.g., Pepperdine University v. 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. ...
2015-11-09 - Case Details
The silence of a respondent may support a finding that it has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. See Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc., v. Lauren Raymond,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0007; Ronson Plc v. ...UDRP panels have previously held that such use of a domain name does not evidence a respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See Skyscanner Limited v. ...
2020-03-02 - Case Details
In addition, the disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant's trademark in its entirety, which previous panels have considered to be well-known (ACCOR v. ...The disputed domain name is so identical to the well-known trademarks NOVOTEL of the Complainant (ACCOR v. Jose Andres Buenfil Gomez-, supra; Accor S.A. v. ...
2012-09-07 - Case Details
See Panavision Int’l, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1326 (9th Cir. 1998) (“A customer who is unsure about a company’s domain name will often guess that the domain name is also the company’s name. . . . ...See, e.g., Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Pieropan, supra (ordering transfer of domain name “marlboroblackmenthol.com”); Philip Morris USA Inc. v. ...
2015-04-23 - Case Details
Combining two marks greatly enhances the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name. See 3M Co. v. Silva, NAF Claim No. 1429349 (finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to complainant's LITTMANN and CARDIOLOGY III marks). ...See, St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, NAF Claim No. 881234 (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where there was no evidence in the record indicating that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name). ...
2015-03-20 - Case Details
D2007-0337; and Scania CV AB (Publ) v. ScaniaFinance.co.uk,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0113. For those reasons, the Panel considers the appropriate test for confusing similarity to be a literal comparison of the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark.
...Services LLC, supra.; and Scania CV AB (Publ) v. ScaniaFinance.co.uk, supra.
The addition of generic or descriptive words to a trademark in a domain name normally does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity, particularly where the trademark constitutes the dominant or principal component of the domain name. ...
2012-01-09 - Case Details
See Philip Morris Incorporated v. r9.net,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0004 (finding that respondent's previous registration of domain names and subsequent registration of the domain name at issue evidenced bad faith registration and use); See also Nabisco Brands Company v. ...UDRP panels have repeatedly held that the specific top level of a domain name such as “.org”, “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar (see Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...
2010-09-13 - Case Details
Scope of the Policy
The Policy is addressed to resolving disputes concerning allegations of abusive domain name registration and use. Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation v. Bay Verte Machinery, Inc. d/b/a The Power Tool Store,
WIPO Case No. ...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. See Wal Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2009-04-01 - Case Details
D2005-0015), the Disputed Domain Name was registered in a deliberate attempt to confuse consumers by typo-squatting (citing Wachovia Corporation 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. ...
2011-02-24 - Case Details
In this context, the Complainant refers to previous UDRP decisions on the Burberry
domain name (Burberry Limited v. S.H. Baek, WIPO
Case No. D2005-0334 on ; Burberry Limited v.
...D2004-0984 and Deloitte
Touche Tohmatsu v. Henry Chan, WIPO Case
No. D2003-0584), the Complainant believes that the linking of the disputed
domain name to a domain name parking sites cannot be regarded as a legitimate
non-commercial or fair use of this domain name.
...
2006-01-30 - Case Details
Trade Me Limited v. Vertical Axis, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0093). This is all not the case here since the website to which the disputed domain name resolves offers nothing that could be characterized as goods and services of the Respondent. ...Jeff Walter,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1278; Jappy GmbH v. Satoshi Shimoshita,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1001). These decisions based their finding on the Respondent’s representation and warranty in the registration agreement that in registering a domain name the registrant undertakes, that it “will not knowingly use the domain name in violation of any applicable laws or regulations” and it is its responsibility “to determine whether [the] domain name infringes or violates someone else's rights” and that such a warranty could be breached by post registration abuses. ...
2011-12-19 - Case Details
It has been consistently held that such absence of use implies the absence of a legitimate interest in the Domain Name (Pivotal Corporation v. Discovery Street Trading Co. Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0648; Baccarat SA v. ...Ltd.; and Baccarat SA v. Web Domain Names, supra).
Further, there is no evidence to support a finding that the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name nor is there any evidence that the Respondent has made a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name.
...
2010-07-06 - Case Details