This is a signal that any trademark claim to the domain name was abandoned and that the domain name could be registered in good faith. Corbis Corporation v. ...See, e.g., Aous Uweyda v. Abdallah Sheet, NAF Case No. 165119.
The domain name in dispute includes the entire distinctive element of Complainants service mark “GOLDMEDAL.CO.UK”. ...
2008-03-25 - 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
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
Such conduct cannot be deemed to have taken place in good faith, and therefore cannot confer any rights to, or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name (see Richemont International SA v. Turvill Consultants,
WIPO Case No. D2014-0862; Minerva S.A v. ...Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot,
WIPO Case No. D2019-2861; adidas AG v. Domain Administrator, Fundacion Privacy Services LTD.,
WIPO Case No. D2019-2431), especially considering that the hyperlinks displayed on the web site to which the disputed domain name resolves generate pay-per-click revenue (see Dreamstime.com LLC v. ...
2020-07-10 - Case Details
Prior UDRP panels have previously found that a respondent’s registration of a domain name after a complainant’s registration lapsed is in itself evidence of bad faith. See Athletica, Inc, v. ...D2000-0003, and Mobile Communication Service Inc. v. WebReg, RN,
WIPO Case No. D2005-1304, views that the Respondent committed bad faith registration and use when it intentionally registered the disputed domain name, shortly after the original registration of which had lapsed, knowing that the disputed domain name includes the mark of the Complainant and is thus identical to that mark so as to cause confusion with it. ...
2013-09-16 - Case Details
v) use of the Disputed Domain Name for email is sufficient to grant a legitimate interest (citing Zero International Holding GmbH & Co. ...Grandel GmbH v. West End Internet Services,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0853 (a dash in a domain name “add[s] no distinctiveness whatsoever”)).
...
2011-12-15 - Case Details
Cimpress Schweiz GmbH, Cimpress Schweiz GmbH,
WIPO Case No. D2019-1230 with regard to the domain name ; DeLaval Holding AB v. Cimpress Schweiz GmbH,
WIPO Case No. D2019-1086 with regard to the domain name ; bioMérieux v. ...Cimpress Schweiz GmbH,
WIPO Case No. D2018-0992 with regard to the domain name ; Select Equity Group, L.P. v. Cimpress Schweiz GmbH,
WIPO Case No. D2017-1140 with regard to the domain name and Sanofi v. ...
2020-04-02 - Case Details
v) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s STATOIL trademark in which Complainant has rights. ...D2013-1583; Statoil ASA. v. Allan, supra; Statoil ASA v. Aysun Kalamar,
WIPO Case No. D2015-1439.
Furthermore, it is well established that the threshold test for confusing similarity under the UDRP involves a comparison between the trademark and the disputed domain name. ...
2016-10-31 - Case Details
See, e.g., The Prudential Insurance
Company of America v. Bigxa Co. Ltd, FA0008000095487 (NAF October 26, 2000)
(finding that “[t]he only difference between the domain name and Complainant’s
various trademarks is the addition of the words “the” and “.com”
in Respondent’s domain name . . . . ...See TABCORP Holdings v. Steven Hertzberg,
D2000-0566 (WIPO September 20, 2000) (finding
that Respondent has no legitimate interest in domain name where it has not shown
use of, or preparations to use, the domain name in a bona fide offering of goods
or services).
...
2004-09-28 - Case Details
The Panel concludes that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith.
Because the SFIL mark had been used and registered by Complainant before the Domain Name registration, the Panel finds it more likely than not that Respondent had Complainant’s mark in mind when registering the Domain Name (Tudor Games, Inc. v. ...Use of a domain name for purposes such as phishing constitutes bad faith use (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4; see also Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. ...
2021-11-17 - Case Details
See PepsiCo, Inc. v. Amilcar Perez
Lista d/b/a Cybersor, WIPO Case No. D2003-0174.
Complainant has provided evidence of its rights in the KENSINGTON Mark and that the Domain Name was registered by Respondent on or about December 11, 2003. ...D2002-0931; Dr. Pepper/Seven
Up., Inc. v. NA, WIPO Case No. D2003-0773.
Based on the foregoing, the Panel finds that Complainant
has shown sufficient facts to support a finding that Respondent registered and
used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii).
7. ...
2006-03-27 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have established that knowledge of Complainant’s intellectual property rights, including trademarks, at the time of registration of the disputed domain name proves bad faith registration (Alstom v. Domain Investments LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0287; NBC Universal Inc. v. ...Finally, it is likely that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name to prevent the Complainant from using its trademark in the disputed domain name. According to prior UDRP panels, this type of conduct constitutes evidence of a respondent’s bad faith (L’oreal v. ...
2021-01-15 - Case Details
The Respondent is Paul Yates of Miami, Florida, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Network Solutions, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), 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”).
...
2013-06-03 - Case Details
D2004-0020, or FleetBoston Financial Corporation v. Albert Jackson,
D2003-0915, there is no connection among
the Marks, the Domain Name, the site of Respondent and the linked sites.
...That is clearly authority applicable in the present case, where the Domain Name
was registered and further used in bad faith.
Following the rationale of the Panels in Pfizer, Inc. v. ...
2004-06-21 - 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. ...D2000-0163; and Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Samuel Teodorek,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1814).
The Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name is apparently for domain monetization unconnected with any bona fide supply of goods or services by the Respondent. ...
2011-11-09 - Case Details
The domain name is used for the Complainant’s main official website.
- The Complainant’s SNCF trademark has been recognized by other panels: for example, Société Nationale des Chemins de Fer Français v. ...D2009-1173; and Société Nationale des Chemins de Fer Français SNCF v. Above.com Domain Privacy / Transure Enterprise Ltd,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1185.
- The disputed domain name was registered on July 20, 2010...
2011-02-14 - 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. ...
2013-02-26 - Case Details
The addition of generic terms does not serve to distinguish a domain name from registered marks. See Banconsumer Service, Inc. v. Mary Langthorne, Financial Advisor,
WIPO Case No. ...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. ...
2013-03-05 - Case Details
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. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale,
WIPO Case No. ...Match.com, LP v. Bill Zag and NWLAWS.ORG,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0230.
In this case, the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's APRICA mark, in which the Complainant had established rights prior to the Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name. ...
2009-08-26 - Case Details