v) The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
B. Respondents
The Respondents did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. ...In addition, the Panel notes that many UDRP panels have found bad faith use of a domain name by a respondent when good faith use is in no way plausible (see Audi AG v. Hans Wolf,
WIPO Case No. ...
2014-04-17 - 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. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...See Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Limited v. Dejan Macesic, supra. As discussed above, the Respondent has failed to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and as noted in Research In Motion Limited v. ...
2009-11-16 - Case Details
- The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name attempts to associate itself with the Complainant’s online service under the trade name/domain name by incorporating the name of the service in full. ...Complainant contends that incorporation of a trade mark in entirety in a domain name is sufficient in establishing confusing similarity as has been held in UDRP decision - Magnum Piering Inc v. ...
2013-01-31 - Case Details
In Koc Holding A.S. v. KEEP B.T.,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0938 where the domain name resolved to an inactive website, the Panel stated “there is no evidence or suggestion that the Respondent has any intention of using the domain name for any purpose or legitimate activity consistent with good faith use. ...See Volkswagen AG v. Privacy Protection Services,
WIPO Case No. D2012-2066.
Likewise, the addition of the generic Top-Level domain (gTLD) “.com” to the disputed domain name does not constitute an element in the disputed domain name so as to avoid confusing similarity for trademark purposes. ...
2013-12-05 - Case Details
In light of the above and of the fact that the addition of the suffix “com”
has no legal significance when comparing the Domain Name and the Complainant’s
trademark (The Vanguard Group Inc. v. Lorna Kang, WIPO
Case No. D2002-1064; Ahmanson Land Company v. ...El Tempranillo, WIPO
Case No. D2004-0066; Banco Zaragozano S.A. v. Constramat y D. Fernando
Labadia Pard WIPO Case No. D2004-0044).
In addition, the current passive holding of the Domain Name (which presently
does not correspond or redirect to any web site) confirms the Respondent’s
bad faith use of the Domain Name. ...
2005-06-30 - Case Details
The Respondent is Jeff Randall of Panama, Panama.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with eNom (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Domain Name consists of that mark, preceded by the geographic names “Richfield” and “Bloomington” and followed by the generic Top-Level Domain (“.com”), generally regarded as irrelevant for the purpose of determining whether a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar: Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...
2015-11-17 - 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)). ...
2013-01-31 - Case Details
Modern Empire Internet Ltd,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0455; and Belupo d.d. v. WACHEM d.o.o.,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0110).
Respondent has failed to show that she has acquired any trademark rights in respect of the disputed domain name or that the disputed domain name is used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
...Radio Globo SA v. Vanilla Limited,
WIPO Case No. D2006-1557).
In view of the Panel, it is clear that registration of the disputed domain name was an intentional effort to gain Internet traffic from users seeking Complainant's official domain names.
...
2014-05-08 - Case Details
See, e.g., First American Funds,
Inc. v. Ult. Search, Inc, WIPO Case No.
D2000-1840 (for offering under Paragraph 4(c)(i) to be considered bona
fide, domain name use must be in good faith. ...Pursuant
to Paragraph 4(b)(iv), this constitutes evidence of bad faith registration and
use of the disputed domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(iii). See
Paule Ka v. Paula Korenek, WIPO Case No.
D2003-0453; Bodegas Vega Sicilia, S.A. v. ...
2004-09-02 - Case Details
See also, Do the Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0624. Respondent here has failed to present any evidence of its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
...See Research In Motion Limited v. Dustin Picov,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0492.
The Panel also finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is in bad faith.
...
2020-04-01 - Case Details
The Complainant contends rightly in the present case that the domain name was registered and used in bad faith.
It has been held in PepsiCo, Inc. v. Zhavoronkov,
WIPO Case No. ...As held in Société des Hôtels Médidien v. LaPorte
Holdings, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2004-0849,
the use of the domain name to divert web traffic to a search engine and linking
portal for profit and the advertising of sponsored websites clearly show use
of the domain name in bad faith.
...
2006-06-13 - Case Details
v. Manzo, WIPO Case No. D2001-1258.
The Complainant argues that the domain name was registered
and is being used by the Respondent in bad faith. ...Weber-Stephen Products Co. v. Armitage Hardware, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0187. See Report of the WIPO Internet Domain Name Process,
Paragraphs 169 & 170. ...
2005-03-17 - Case Details
In addition, the Respondent was already ordered to transfer the domain name to the Complainant. The panel of that case found that the domain name, which featured the Complainant’s ACCENTURE mark in its entirety, was registered and used by the respondent in bad faith (Accenture Global Services Limited v. ...Therefore, the Panel is convinced that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant when it registered the disputed domain name and the Panel can find no plausible circumstances in which the Respondent could legitimately use the disputed domain name (see also Microsoft Corporation v. ...
2020-09-09 - Case Details
David Lee;
WIPO Case No. D2009-1758, Guccio Gucci S.p.A. v. Zhiyuan Zou, Zouzhi ZhouO, Fujian Anfu, etc.
Lastly, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...With respect to the argument of use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, the Complainant refers to the following decisions: Guccio Gucci S.p.A. v. Domain Administrato – Domain Administrator,
WIPO Case No. ...
2021-06-22 - Case Details
It is established case law that where a domain name incorporates a complainant’s registered mark, this is sufficient to establish that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy (Kabushiki Kaisha Hitachi Seisakusho (d/b/a/ Hitachi Ltd) v Arthur Wrangle,
WIPO Case No. ...The Panel accepts that the absence of an apostrophe is irrelevant for the purposes of determining similarity since inclusion of an apostrophe in a domain name is impossible (see McDonald’s Corporation v Wang,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0624).
Further, the Panel also accepts that the gTLD suffix in the disputed domain name (“.com”) should not be taken into consideration when examining the similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s KOHL’S Marks since it is a functional element (see G4S Plc v Noman Burki,
WIPO Case No. ...
2019-09-04 - Case Details
Furthermore, the hyphen “-” which is added in the portion of the Domain Name, does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity, as it is also non-distinctive (Arcelormittal v. ...Because the KPMG mark had been widely used and registered at the time of the Domain Name registration by Respondent, 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. ...
2019-10-03 - Case Details
Evidence of which has been provided to the Panel.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark ELECTROLUX. The fame of the trademark has been confirmed in previous WIPO UDRP decisions, for example, AB Electrolux v. ...Further, see also Microsoft Corporation v. J. Holiday Co.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1493, in which it was stated that “[…] consumers expect to find a company on the Internet at a domain name address comprised of the company’s name or trademark.” ...
2011-01-26 - Case Details
However, the fact that the disputed domain name is not being actively used does not prevent a finding of bad
faith use. It is a well-established view of UDRP panels, including in Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear
Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, and Jupiters Limited v. Aaron Hall, WIPO Case No.
D2000-0574, that the non-use of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of
passive holding. ...
2023-05-19 - Case Details
The "use" of a domain name in bad faith does not necessarily mean use on the Internet: Bayshore Vinyl Compounds Inc. v. ...Dennis Toeppen (WIPO case D2000-0400); Video Networks Limited v. Larry Joe King (WIPO case D2000-0487); Recordati S.P.A. v. Domain Name Clearing Company (WIPO case D2000-0194) and Revlon Consumer Products Corporation v. ...
2001-02-02 - Case Details
It is 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
pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy (See Magnum Piering, Inc. v.
The Mudjackers and Garwood & Wilson, Sr., WIPO
Case No. D2000-1525; Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0429).
Furthermore, it is a consensus view among many Panelists
that the assumption of confusing similarity between trademark and domain name
is not refuted by the fact that the Complainant’s trademark contains an
additional figurative element which cannot be reproduced in a domain name (Toyota
Motor Sales USA v. ...
2007-01-25 - Case Details