See Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Wei-Chun Hsia,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0923.
Here, Complainant’s MICHELIN mark is fully incorporated in the disputed domain name. ...Stanley Filoramo,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0822 (“[t]he fact that the disputed domain name is redirected to a pornographic website is an indication that the domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.”); Ty, Inc., v. ...
2020-07-20 - 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
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 the top level domain suffix does not dispel confusion. The top level domain of the disputed domain name is to be ignored for the purposes of assessing similarity as it is a functional requirement of the domain name system, which is the common view of panelists and held in earlier cases such as DHL Operations B.V. v. ...The use of the added descriptive word does not change the overall impression of the domain name as being dominated by the term “BLACKBERRY” and does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark (see Microsoft Corporation v. ...
2012-03-23 - Case Details
The website associated with the Disputed Domain Name also included what appeared to be an offering of the Disputed Domain Name for sale.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. ...Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(a) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Disputed Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.
Charné Le Roux
Sole Panelist
Date: June 4, 2013
Annexure 1
See Kforce, Inc. v. ...
2013-06-14 - 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. ...Therefore, the Domain Name is used for commercial purposes and paragraph 4(c)(iii) is not applicable. See Overstock.com, Inc. v. ...
2016-10-03 - 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
Indeed, the so-called “passive holding” of the domain name made by the Respondent, together with other circumstances listed in the decision Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...D2007-1412 and Mastercard International Incorporated v. Total Card Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1411 mentioned in the Complaint).
Concerning the use of the domain name, the Complainant has proven that the disputed domain name resolves to a webpage showing the message “503 Service Unavailable”.
...
2008-08-28 - Case Details
The adjunction of the descriptive term “online” in the disputed domain name does not erase the strong similarity that exists with the prior trademarks of the Complainant (Repsol YPF S.A. v. ...Moreover, the inclusion of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix “.com” does not avoid confusing similarity of the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark (AT&T Corp. v. ...
2014-06-10 - Case Details
CredoNic.com / Domain Name for Sale,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0755; Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Midas Search Limited,
WIPO Case No. ...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.”)
...
2020-07-16 - Case Details
It is well established in previous UDRP cases that, where a disputed domain name incorporates the complainant's registered trademark, this may be sufficient to establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy (see Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...In FC Bayern München e.V v. Miguel Garcia,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1773, concerning the domain name , the Panel concluded that the Respondent had registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith by incorporating in full a well know trademark FC BAYERN, distinctive of a German football club. ...
2015-12-03 - Case Details
D2006-0006 (bad faith use where PPC links on respondent’s domain name website included ads for champagne products from complainant's competitors); and The Knot, Inc. v. ...On the facts of this case, there is zero basis for a finding of bad faith registration of the Domain Name. See WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 3.1; Wildfire, Inc. v. Namebase, supra. See also CNR Music B.V. v. ...
2014-09-10 - Case Details
D2001-0241, and the abbreviation of the trademark in Société
pour l’oeuvre et la mémoire d’Antoine de Saint-Exupéry v.
The Holding Company, WIPO Case
No. D2005-0165. In each of these cases the transfer of the domain name was
ordered.
...Bill Keith, WIPO
Case No. D 2000-0299); Champagne Lanson v. Development Services
/ MailPlanet. corn, Inc; WIPO Case No.
D2006-0006.
The Complainants submit that the Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name in dispute insofar as there is no resemblance between the name constituting the domain name (didierguerin) and the corporate name of the Respondent (Webadvertising, Corp).
...
2007-05-14 - Case Details
v) Finally, the Complainant contends that the Respondent acted in bad faith because the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name obviously exploits the goodwill of the Mark.
...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. ...
2013-11-14 - 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. ...In the circumstances, the Panel finds, pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv), that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith to confuse and divert Internet traffic to its website for commercial gain. See EH New Ventures Inc. v. ...
2010-05-25 - Case Details
Dublin) Limited v. Tim Healy/BOSTH,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0026). The addition of descriptive terms in the domain name does not generally affect a finding that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered trademark (see ACCOR, Société Anonyme à Directoire et Conseil de Surveillance v. ...D2000-0003.
As was stated in Pharmacia & Upjohn Company v. Moreonline,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0134, the “mere registration[, or earlier registration of a domain name], does not establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name”. ...
2011-05-06 - Case Details
Such use of
the disputed domain name is also disruptive in relation to the interests of Complainant (see Sbarro Franchise
Co., LLC v. ...The present case is identical to the Autodesk, Inc. v. zhang jie, supra and Autodesk, Inc. v. Shao Juan
Huang, supra proceedings as to whether the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad
faith. ...
2023-05-24 - Case Details
There is no evidence that the
Respondent has conducted any bona fide business under the disputed domain name or is commonly known
by the disputed domain name. Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., WIPO Case No.
...D2009-1561 (emails sent impersonating complainant’s agents). Archer-Daniels-Midland
Company v. Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2016-1618 (disputed domain name registered in bad faith
where the respondent sent e-mails from the domain name claiming to be the complainant’s officer).
...
2022-06-01 - Case Details
Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast
Entertainment Corp., 174 F.3d 1036, 1059 (9th Cir. 1999). The
Domain Name incorporates Complainant’s SYSCO mark in it entirety and with
identical spelling. ...See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0003.
The Domain Name adds the geographic descriptor “Houston”
to Complainant’s SYSCO trademark. ...
2007-04-27 - Case Details
The inclusion of the gTLD “.com” in the disputed domain name constitutes a technical requirement of the
Domain Name System (“DNS”), and therefore has no legal significance in the present case (see
CARACOLITO S SAS v. ...The abovementioned facts show that not only did the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in
bad faith, but also that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in bad faith (see BHP Billiton
Innovation Pty Ltd. v. ...
2023-07-04 - Case Details