The domain name combines the Complainant’s mark "ATT" with a generic term "universal". The domain name similarly combines the Complainant’s mark with the generic term "internet". ...v. Polanski,
WIPO
Case No.
D2001-0959
(September 21, 2001),
in so far
as there
was no apparent
reason for
the Respondent
to have
chosen the
contested
domain name
other than
to profit
by its fame
and by the
traffic
generated
by the likely
initial
expectation
of users
that it
is a name
associated
with the
Complainant
and its
services.
...
2003-08-20 - Case Details
This is particularly so on the Internet
given the widespread use of “.com” as an indication of the commercial
nature of the domain name: see, for example, BIC Deutschland GmbH & Co
KG v. Paul Tweed, WIPO Case No.
2000-0418.
The Complainant has thus succeeded in providing evidence of the confusing similarity between its registered trademark TELESHOPPING and the domain name .
...This interpretation of “bad faith use”
as including a non-justified holding of a domain name without either any activity
on the corresponding web site or any legitimate right in the name has since
been approved by a number of Panels (e.g., Kentucky Fried Chicken International
Holdings, Inc. v. ...
2005-01-12 - Case Details
Respondent is Super Privacy Service c/o Dynadot of San Mateo, California, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The aforementioned all predate the registration of the disputed domain name by Respondent.
The disputed domain name was registered on October 26, 2014. ...
2017-08-09 - Case Details
The Respondent is Jayson Jones of Conwy, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, self-represented.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the "Domain Name") is registered with Crazy Domains FZ-LLC (the "Registrar").
3. ...Numerous earlier UDRP decisions have held that when a domain name wholly incorporates a Complainant's registered trademark, it is sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy (for instance, see Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...
2014-08-15 - Case Details
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
...The Complainant has also demonstrated to the Panel’s satisfaction that its ALLSTATE mark and brand are well-known and acclaimed.
The Domain Names wholly incorporate the Complainant’s mark, either preceded or followed by “myaccount”. UDRP panels have consistently held that the addition of descriptive words to a complainant’s trademark does not distinguish a domain name from that registered mark (see Nintendo of America Inc. v. ...
2019-11-08 - Case Details
See General Electric Company v. John Bakhit, WIPO Case No.
D2000-0386 (“Respondent has sought to profit from the mere registration as a domain name of a well-
known trademark. ...The Panel determines that Respondent has registered and used
the domain name ‘general-electric.com’ in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy.”);
see also Meta Platforms, Inc. v. ...
2022-03-23 - Case Details
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
...Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant bears the burden of showing:
(i) that the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) that the domain name has been registered and is being used by the Respondent in bad faith.
...
2010-05-19 - Case Details
The Respondent is Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / Oga TcN, Nigeria.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...For completeness, the Panel notes that the Complainant provides evidence indicating that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to pass itself off as the Complainant, by way of a cloned website, and that common law protection generally is recognized in connection with the tort of passing off (see Mark Guagliardo v. ...
2021-11-26 - Case Details
The Respondent is Usman ABD, Usmandel of Lagos, Nigeria.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Complainant alleges that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name because the purpose of the Domain Name registration was to perpetrate fraud. The Complainant alleges that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith because the Domain Name was registered with the sole purpose of perpetrating fraud.
...
2015-04-14 - Case Details
D2003-0527 and Deutsche Post AG v NJDomains, WIPO
Case No. D2006-0001. The prior registration of the domain name may, of course,
be highly relevant under the other paragraphs of the Policy.
...The first problem with this argument is that it does not address the requirement
that the domain name must both have been registered in bad faith and also being
used in bad faith: Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows,
WIPO Case No. ...
2007-04-10 - Case Details
See e.g. Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Ciger,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1675 (transferring ). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark. ...- The Complainant’s Mark registration dates back over a century; it is inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s Mark when registering the disputed domain name. Phillip Morris USA, Inc. v. ADN HOSTING,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1609.
- A simple Internet search or domain name search would have disclosed the Complainant’s ownership of the Mark and the extensive scope of Complainant’s use of the Mark. ...
2016-11-08 - Case Details
Anyone who sees the disputed domain name is bound to mistake it as a domain name associated with the Complainant. As the prefix of the disputed domain name does not detract from the overall impression, the disputed domain name must therefore be considered to be confusingly similar with the Trademark.
...Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant must show a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, which the Respondent may rebut (e.g. Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2013-11-05 - Case Details
D2012-0273 for the domain name ; HUGO BOSS Trademark Management GmbH & Co. KG v. Guanjing I Daziran,
WIPO Case No. D2014-0801 for the domain name ; HUGOBOSS AG, HUGO BOSS Trademark Management GmbH & Co. KG v. fi:eeoakley I WhoisGuard,
WIPO Case No. ...
2017-01-06 - Case Details
The Respondent is Domain Administrator, Diamond Point Enterprises, Thailand.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Edomains LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Respondent has also been a respondent in several prior domain name disputes concerning domain names such as (Government Employees Insurance Company (“GEICO”) v. ...
2021-07-13 - Case Details
The Respondent is Transure Enterprise Ltd of Tortola, British Virgin Islands, Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Above.com Domain Privacy of Beaumaris, Australia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Above.com, Inc.
3. ...The disputed domain name is being used in bad faith since the Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract Internet users to the disputed domain name by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent's website or the products or services posted on or linked to the Respondent's website and as to the Respondent's relationship to the Complainant's mark, which enjoys good reputation among doctors (see: Fox News Network, LLC v. ...
2010-02-16 - Case Details
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
...See Allianz Global Investors of America, L.P. and Pacific Investment Management Company (PIMCO) v. Bingo-Bongo,
WIPO Case No. D2011-0795; Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. v. Wei-Chun Hsia,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0923 (the addition of a dictionary or generic word to a trademark will not prevent a determination that the domain name at issue is confusingly similar).
...
2021-05-26 - Case Details
The Respondent is Johnathan Smith, cheapabercrombie, New York, New York, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name, , is registered with eNom, Inc.
3. ...Lilly ICOS LLC v. Lei Lu,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0436. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
7. ...
2009-02-05 - Case Details
Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. The Eight Black Group, Simon Chen and Denise Marble,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0989.
4.13 At some point subsequent to that decision the way in which the Respondent's domain names, including the Domain Name, were used, changed. ...In such circumstances the there is no longer any impersonation through the domain name alone.
6.18 As was discussed by the panel in Covance, Inc. and Covance Laboratories Ltd. v. ...
2014-11-21 - Case Details
The Respondent is R.J.V, France.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Hostinger, UAB (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Complainant has also been con...
The disputed domain name was registered on July 7, 2022. The disputed domain name resolves to a Registrar’s parking page.
5. ...
2022-11-02 - Case Details
Respondent’s Singapore entity, “V. Davidoff Timepieces,” was registered on July 25, 2019, which falls after the registration of the disputed domain name on April 7, 2019, but prior to the disputed domain name on August 20, 2019.
The Panel finds, that, for paragraph 4(c) to apply, Respondent must have been commonly known by the domain name “as at the date of registration of the domain name.” (See Rothschild Bank AG, N M Rothschild & Sons Limited and Rothschild Continuation Holdings AG v. ...
2020-07-15 - Case Details