The mere addition of the generic acronym “www” does not eliminate the confusing similarity between the Complainant's marks and the disputed domain name (see LEGO Juris A/S v. Bladimir Boyiko,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0437; The Nasdaq OMX Group, Inc. v. ...FA 96493; Cable News Network LP v. Stonybrook Investments LTD, NAF Case No. FA 96282 - all decisions dealing with the element “www” within the domain name disputed in each case). ...
2009-06-30 - Case Details
iv) There has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent has any registered trademark rights with respect to the disputed domain name.
(v) The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s LEGO trademark.
(vi) There has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
...D2009-0135 [finding that the ‘deals’ portion of the disputed domain name ‘may tend, if anything, to increase the likelihood of confusion, because the word indicates endorsement of the domain name by Complainant’, owner of the QVC mark].”)
6 See Forest Laboratories, Inc. v. candrug,
WIPO Case No. ...
2013-02-15 - Case Details
D2005-0623; Red Bull GmbH v.
Unasi Management, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2005-0304).
Internet users who type the domain name at issue into
the browser are redirected to a website which is accessible under the domain
name . ...Therefore, the Complainant holds
the disputed domain name is identical to the dominant part of this Complainant’s
word mark. The “.com” element of the disputed domain name does not
change this conclusion since numerous panel decisions, such as Swatch AG
v. ...
2005-12-13 - Case Details
The addition of the TLD “.com” is irrelevant in determining whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar. See, Research in Motion Limited v thamer Ahmed Alfarshooti,
WIPO Case No. ...A respondent not commonly known by the disputed domain name evinces a lack of rights or legitimate interests. See World Natural Bodybuilding Federation, Inc. v. ...
2021-08-24 - 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. ...As noted in Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0003, 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.
...
2007-04-23 - Case Details
D2005-0591; and Microsoft Corporation v. Gioacchino Zerbo,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0644.
B. Respondent
(i) Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Respondent does not dispute that the disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant's mark TRAVELPRO.
...Here, Complainant has proffered no evidence that Respondent likely was aware of its trademark rights at the time it registered the domain name or otherwise was targeting Complainant or its mark."
and Audiopoint, Inc. v. eCorp a/k/a Chad Folkening,
WIPO Case No. ...
2016-08-19 - Case Details
v) The Complainant submits that by holding the disputed domain name, the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...In addition, the Panel notes that many UDRP panels have held that bad faith use of a domain name by a respondent may also result from the fact its good faith use is in no way plausible (see Audi AG v. ...
2018-07-30 - Case Details
NABR,WIPO Case No.D2001-1480; Britannia Building Society v. Britannia Fraud Prevention, WIPO Case No. D2001-0505).
To establish confusing similarity it is therefore not required to establish that the registration and use of the domain name causes confusion as to the source, but whether the name or mark and the alphanumeric string constituting the domain name when directly compared are confusingly similar.
...Furthermore, it is well established that the specific top level of a domain name such as “.com”, “.org”, “.net” or “.name” may be disregarded when determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which Complainant has rights (See Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...
2006-11-28 - Case Details
The mere addition of one letter to the Complainant’s trademark does not adequately distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). See Wal -Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...D2009-0705; America Online, Inc. v. Anson Chan,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0004. As well, the inclusion of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not avoid confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark MOMONDO. ...
2013-10-30 - Case Details
In AT&T
Corp. v. Randy Thompson, WIPO Case
No. D2001-0830, the panel ordered the transfer of the domain name
after finding it to be confusingly similar to the marks of AT&T and Microsoft.
...Other examples of WIPO panels ordering the transfer of domain names in dispute
involving mergers include Vivendi S.A. et al v. Yu Fu Zhao WIPO
Case No. D2000-0717 where the domain name was
requested two days after the announcement of the merger of Vivendi and The Seagram
Company Ltd., the panel ordered that the domain name must be transferred to
the merged entity; Pharmacia & Upjohn AB v. ...
2007-04-04 - 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.
...The Panel draws from these circumstances an inference of bad faith use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent.
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. ...
2021-03-31 - Case Details
Dublin) Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0026 (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of the complainant combined with a generic word or term). ...Sys., Inc. v. Hu, NAF Claim No. 157321 (finding that the respondent’s use of the domain name to offer goods competing with the complainant’s illustrates the respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain name, evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy 4(b)(iv)). ...
2013-03-21 - Case Details
D2000-0270, and Reuters Limited v. Global Net 2000, Inc,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0441.
The Complainant has shown that the Respondent engages
in passive holding of the domain name at issue. The fact that a respondent engages
in passive holding of a domain name can in certain circumstances be evidence
of use in bad faith, see e.g. Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2005-05-25 - Case Details
See Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0662 (domain name incorporating mark in its entirety is confusingly
similar). ...D2000-0638.
3 The Respondent’s
offer to sell the domain name to the public can be deemed an offer to sell to
the Complainant or its competitors. Gateway, Inc. v. ...
2006-01-19 - Case Details
The addition of the letter “f” in the beginning of the Domain Name does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity (Express Scripts, Inc. v. Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. / Domaindeals, Domain Administrator,
WIPO Case No. ...The Panel concludes that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith.
Because the XIFINITY mark was well known at the time of the Domain Name registration by Respondent, as repeatedly recognized (Comcast Corporation v. ...
2020-04-14 - Case Details
The addition of the gTLD “.com” to the disputed domain name constitutes a technical requirement of the
Domain Name System. Thus, it has no legal significance in assessing identity or confusing similarity in the
present case (see CARACOLITO S SAS v. ...The typosquatting conduct of the Respondent amounts to bad faith registration of the disputed domain name
(see Lexar Media, Inc. v. Michael Huang, WIPO Case No. D2004-1039; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2022-08-25 - Case Details
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. ...The Panel notes another case involving the Respondent in respect of the domain name : See GAAH INC., d/b/a Autointel v. Services LLC, Claim Number: FA0702000925297 (April 18, 2007).
5. ...
2007-06-13 - Case Details
It has long been held that speculating in and trading in generic or descriptive domain names such as the disputed domain name, can indeed constitute a legitimate interest under the Policy (See Havanna S.A. v. ...Complainant makes an obtuse reference at Page 8, Paragraph C(iv)(a) and (v) of the Complaint to ‘renewal’ of the Domain Name, and makes a similar reference, without explanation at Page 7, Paragraph B(v). ...
2017-12-01 - Case Details
Panels acting under the Policy have held that registration of a domain name
incorporating another’s famous mark does not confer any rights or legitimate
interests in the domain name to Respondent, but rather constitutes bad faith
under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy (citing Telstra Corporation Limited v.
...According to Complainant, its case is similar to V&S
Vin & Sprit Aktiebolag v. Kownacki in that the KATE SPADE Trademarks
are famous, and therefore Respondent knew or should have known of Complainant’s
marks when it registered its domain name.
...
2005-06-01 - Case Details
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. ...It is well established that a respondent has a right to register and use a domain name to attract Internet traffic based solely on the appeal of a commonly used descriptive phrase, even where the domain name is confusingly similar to the registered mark of a complainant (see National Trust for Historic Preservation v. ...
2011-10-12 - Case Details