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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Match.com, LP v. Bill Zag and NWLAWS.ORG,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0230. The Policy provides
a remedy only in cases where the complainant proves that the domain name “has
been registered and is being used in bad faith”.
...The restriction on trademark protection for personal names protects others with the same name who may wish to use it in their business. With respect to domain names, paragraph (c)(ii) of the Policy serves a similar purpose, regardless of whether the domain name registrant has acquired trademark or service mark rights in the name.
4 Compare Match.com,
LP v. ...
2005-09-23 - Case Details
Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is not making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. See, The Caravan Club v. ...There is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. See, The Caravan Club v. ...
2011-04-28 - 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
The addition of the letter “s” does not distinguish the Domain Name from the SILVERSEA trademark and is a common form of typosquatting. See ESH Strategies Branding, LLC v. ...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’).
...
2018-12-12 - 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
See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Brad Tauer,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1076 (“the amount sought, $475, far exceeds the domain name registration fee and Respondent did not present any documentation as to any other ‘out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name.’”).
...D2006-1435; Barry D. Sears, Ph.D. v. YY / Yi Yanlin,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0286. Moreover, Respondent likely profits by earning pay-per-click revenues from the Disputed Domain Name.
...
2011-02-21 - Case Details