Martens International Trading GmbH, Dr.
Maertens Marketing GmbH v. Private Whois Service, supra; FXCM Global Services, LLC v. Ai Lin, supra).
That the Respondent has listed the disputed domain name for sale for a price which clearly exceeds the
Respondent’s investment in the disputed domain name, and that this constitutes bad faith registration and
use of the disputed domain name (and cites AT&T Corp v. rnetworld, WIPO Case No. ...case=D2008-0598
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Ecolab USA Inc. v. Domain Privacy, Domain Name Privacy Inc
Case No. D2025-1628
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. ...
2025-06-19 - Case Details
Indeed, it is well established that the offer to sell a domain name in excess of the out of pocket expenses of the respondent in registering the domain name can be compelling evidence of bad faith registration and use (Imara Trade Marks BVI Limited v. Direct Privacy ID 1078D, Domain Name Proxy Service, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2012-2183, Massachusetts Medical Society v. Michael Karle,
WIPO Case No. ...
2019-10-14 - Case Details
See i.a. Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0429 “the specific top level of the domain name such as ‘.net’ or ‘.com’ does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar”; Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B. v. ...Moreover, the Panel finds that the domain name holder, whose true identity is obscured by the privacy shield, has not shown that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name, as stated in Fry’s Electronics, Inc v. ...
2011-05-27 - Case Details
Panels disregard the domain name suffix in evaluating confusing similarity. E.g., VAT Holding AG v. Vat.com,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0607; Shangri-La International Hotel Management Limited v. ...A complainant must show a prima facie case that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name, after which the burden of rebuttal passes to the respondent. See, e.g., Croatia Airlines d.d. v. ...
2009-07-22 - Case Details
That numerous previous UDRP panels have found that “once the Complainant makes a prima facie showing that the registrant does not have rights or legitimate interest in the domain name, the evidentiary burden shifts to the registrant to rebut the showing by providing evidence of its rights or interests in the domain name” (citing The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. ...The addition of said generic term “radio” to the trademark EURONEWS does not add a distinctive character to the disputed domain name, and it does not eliminate the confusing similarity between said trademark and the disputed domain name (see CBS Broadcasting Inc. v. ...
2011-10-21 - Case Details
It is also well established that the specific top level of a domain name such as “.com”, “.org” or “.net” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar (See Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...Therefore, the present case does differ from those where a respondent is
predominantly offering under a certain domain name goods and services
non-related to that domain name (cf. Philip Morris Incorporated v. Alex Tsypkin,
WIPO Case No. ...
2005-06-27 - Case Details
The Complainant asserts that UDRP panels had recognized that consumers expect to find a trademark owner on the Internet at a domain name address comprised of the company’s name or mark, citing Michael Crichton v. Alberta Hot Rods,
WIPO Case No. ...Secondly, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has never been known by the disputed domain name and has no legitimate interest in the SWAROVSKI marks or the name “Swarovski”, citing Marriott International, Inc. v. ...
2011-01-28 - 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. D2001-1367; Royal Bank of Canada v. RBC Bank,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0672; and Allianz AG v. Marian Dinu,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0318.
It is also well-established that the specific generic top level of a domain name such as “.net”, does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark.
...
2013-07-29 - Case Details
Because the SANOFI mark had been widely used and registered at the time of the Domain Name registration by Complainant, the Panel finds it more likely than not that Respondent had Complainant’s mark in mind when registering this Domain Name (Tudor Games, Inc. v. ...As regards bad faith use, Complainant demonstrated that the Domain Name leads to an inactive website. The non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith (Sanofi v. ...
2019-03-05 - Case Details
See Gannett Co., Inc. v. Henry Chan,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0117 (a domain name incorporating a well-known trademark combined with a geographically descriptive term is confusingly similar to the trademark); Inter-IKEA Systems B.V. v. ...D2006-0006 (pay-per-click landing page not legitimate where ads are keyed to the trademark value of the domain name); The Knot, Inc. v. In Knot We Trust LTD,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0340 (same); Brink’s Network, Inc. v. ...
2014-03-27 - 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 supports a finding of a lack of rights or legitimate interests. See World Natural Bodybuilding Federation, Inc. v. ...
2021-09-14 - Case Details
Jason Lau, Sharing,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0783, where the domain name was held to be confusingly similar to the BELSTAFF trademark; Lime Wire LLC v. ...Scot banner,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0965, where the domain name was held to be confusingly similar to the IBM trademark because many Internet users would assume that the domain name identifies a website from which they can download software supplied by the Complainant; Nintendo of America Inc v. ...
2013-11-26 - Case Details
It is well established that the top-level designation used as part of a domain name may be disregarded when considering identity or confusing similarity: (see Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...See Match.com, LP v. Bill Zag and NWLAWS.ORG,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0230).
The evidence supports the Complainant's contention that the Respondent registered and has used the Domain Name in bad faith. ...
2015-08-17 - Case Details
v) Complainant’s Prior Rights. Complainant’s use of its Marks and its domain name precede Respondent’s registration of its domain name by more than five years. ...See Marconi Data Systems, Inc. v. IRG Coins and Ink Source, Inc., Case
No. D2000-0090, p. 3.
b) Respondent’s Altered Use of Domain Name. ...
2001-09-26 - Case Details
Inc v. Blue Q Ltd, et al,
WIPO Case No. D2011-0702).").
Finally, the addition of a gTLD such as ".com" in a domain name is technically required. Thus, it is well established that such element may be disregarded when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark. Proactiva Medio Ambiente, S.A. v. Proactiva,
WIPO Case No. ...
2014-12-31 - Case Details
The Panel concludes, therefore, that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. See, e.g., PartyGaming Plc. , PartyGaming IA Limited v. ...The diversion of traffic to third parties and their products demonstrates that Respondent is using the disputed domain name for commercial purposes. See, e.g., The Bear Stearns Companies Inc. v. Darryl Pope,
WIPO Case No. ...
2011-05-19 - Case Details
The circumstances mentioned in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy are not exclusive. The Complainant must show that the domain name was registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith (see Telstra Corporation Limited. v. ...The Respondent was first contacted by the Complainant asking him to sell the disputed domain name. The fact that when approached by someone you are in principle willing to discuss sale of a domain name does not in itself constitute bad faith (see Pacific Place Holdings Ltd.. v. ...
2010-01-27 - Case Details
V. Krpanu, WIPO Case
No. D2000-0948.
Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. ...D2000-0638. Registration of an ordinary word as a domain name and
use of that domain name for that ordinary, non-trademark significance, can be
a legitimate interest Thrifty, Inc. and Thrifty Rent-A-Car System, Inc. v.
...
2003-03-20 - Case Details
Complaint, Annex J)
The Complaint filed herein reflects an earlier albeit unsuccessful attempt by Complainants to obtain the transfer of the disputed domain name, at a time when the domain name was not registered to the Respondent. See Shaw Industries Group, Inc. and Columbia Insurance Company v. ...Using a domain name for third-party advertising may be legitimate in some circumstances. See, e.g., The Landmark Group v. ...
2008-02-28 - Case Details
Weber-Stephen Products Co. v. Armitage Hardware,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0187. See Report of the WIPO Internet Domain Name Process, paragraphs 169 and 170. ...Thus, the Respondent may not claim legitimacy based on a continuation of the original registrant’s presumed use of the domain name to reflect its business or trade name. See HSBC Finance Corporation v. Clear Blue Sky Inc. and Domain Manager, supra....
2008-03-31 - Case Details