Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Web Marketing Limited,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0005 (“[I]t is well established that incorporating the entirety of a mark into a domain name is sufficient to establish that a domain name is confusingly similar to the registered mark[.]”) ...D2000-0915 (holding that “commonly known” means “that the person or entity in whose name the domain name is registered was effectively known by third parties by the domain name before the moment of registration”) (emphasis added); National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’is v. ...
2012-08-09 - 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. ...The Respondent’s presumptive passive holding of the disputed domain name does not preclude a finding of bad faith in the attendant circumstances of this case. As set forth in Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2022-03-18 - Case Details
Using a disputed domain name to operate phishing scheme does not give the Respondent rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name (see Juno Online Servs., Inc. v. ...The phishing scheme is evidence of the Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name (see Hess Corp. v. GR, NAF Claim No. 770909; Juno Online Servs., Inc. v. Nelson, NAF Claim No. 241972; and Morgan Stanley v. ...
2012-07-10 - Case Details
VeriSign, Inc. v. Michael
Brook, WIPO Case No. D2000-1139 (March 7, 2001)
(holding domain name as a mere placeholder demonstrates that the holder has
no right or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name); American
Home Prod. Corp. v. Ben Malgioglio, WIPO
Case No. D2000-1602 (February 19, 2001), (finding no rights or legitimate
interest in the domain name at issue where respondent merely passively held
the domain name); Ziegenfelder Co. v. ...
2005-11-29 - Case Details
Therefore, Respondent is making a direct commercial use of the disputed domain name and not a noncommercial or fair use. See e.g., Pfizer Inc. v. jg a/k/a Josh Green,
WIPO Case No. ...As a further indication of bad faith, Respondent also appears to employ the disputed domain name to disrupt the business of Complainant, the trademark holder. Policy, paragraph 4b(iv); Ticketmaster Corporation v. ...
2012-09-25 - Case Details
See Rapidshare AG and Christian Schmid v. Majeed Randi,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1089.
The Panel notes that the entirety of the DOLLAR BANK Mark is incorporated in the Disputed Domain Name.
...In Cellular One Group v. Paul Brien,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0028, complainant filed a UDRP complaint against the registrant of domain name . ...
2016-09-09 - Case Details
KG v. Pertshire Marketing, Ltd,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0767).
The Domain Name incorporates the Complainant's NATURA mark in its entirety. ...It is well established that the offer to sell a domain name in excess of the out of pocket expenses of the respondent is evidence of bad faith. See The Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska v. ...
2010-12-08 - Case Details
This is so in the present case because the term “vaper” does not prevent
the trademark NEO from being recognizable in the disputed domain name.
The addition of the gTLD “.com” to the disputed domain name is immaterial for purposes of assessing
confusing similarity because it is a technical requirement of the Domain Name System (see CARACOLITO S
SAS v. ...D2022-2336: “The Complainant also noted that Mail Exchange records are present on the
disputed domain name which means that it is set up to be used as an email address. Therefore, there is a
risk that the disputed domain name be used for misleading emails.”; Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.
...
2022-10-24 - Case Details
Respondent is Kelvin Osita of Mushin, Lagos State, Nigeria.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with eNom (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Inter-IKEA Systems B.V. v. Evezon Co. Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0437. The addition of the characters “cotl” to Complainant’s RBS trademark does not prevent the disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark. ...
2012-11-09 - Case Details
See also Harrods Limited v. Brad Shaw,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0411, where the Panel held that “The Domain Name consists of the word HARRODS plus a hyphen and the generic term “poker”. ...See ChemRite CoPac, Inc. v. Issac Goldstein,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0279. Likewise, the fact that the Respondent is offering to sell the disputed domain name, as evidenced on the disputed domain name website by the words: “Are you interested in buying this domain name?” ...
2010-07-28 - Case Details
Furthermore, the Complainant argues that panels have held in cases where the Complainant was a party, that a domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark when the domain name incorporates the mark in its entirety (see Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. ...In addition, the “.com” suffix in the disputed domain name does not affect the determination that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with SWAROVSKI in which the Complainant has trademark rights (see also Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. ...
2014-02-05 - Case Details
D2014-1983; Government Employees Insurance Company v. G La Porta, yoyo.email / Yoyo.email Ltd,
WIPO Case No. D2014-0805).
The evidence filed by the Respondent seems to focus on the domain name , but not the disputed domain name .
The Respondent has not explained why he needs to incorporate the Complainant's trademarks in the disputed domain name, and then warehouse said inactive domain name. The Panel finds no possibilities for an intended use of said disputed domain name in good faith (see Euromarket Designs, Inc. v. ...
2015-07-20 - Case Details
Id., (citing De Agostini S.p.A. v. Marco Cialone,
WIPO Case No. DTV2002-0005).
Complainant avers that Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and that Respondent has no license or authorization from Complainant to use the TEMOVATE trademark. ...Respondent's commercial activities undertaken through use of the disputed domain name are not bona fide under the Policy.2 See, e.g. America Online, Inc. v. Xianfeng Fu,
WIPO Case No. ...
2010-06-21 - Case Details
Because the AL FAKHER mark had been widely registered and used 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. ...The non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith (Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,
WIPO Case No. ...
2019-06-21 - Case Details
D2000-1525; and EAuto, L.L.C. v. Triple S. Auto Parts d/b/a Kung Fu Yea Enterprises, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0047).
The disputed domain name features the word Mark LE DUFF in its entirety. ...The Panel is therefore convinced that the Respondent was 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. ...
2019-11-07 - Case Details
The addition of the generic term “lady” to the disputed domain name does not constitute a decisive element to avoid confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the MICHELIN trademark (see eBay Inc. v. ebayMoving / Izik Apo,
WIPO Case No. ...Mere assertions are insufficient in demonstrating preparations to use a disputed domain name in connection to a bona fide offering of goods or services or making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name (see Helen Fielding v. ...
2017-07-18 - Case Details
It is beyond cavil that this type of use of the domain name constitutes bad faith in the context of the Policy.”); Teleperformance v. Venkateshwara Distributor Private Limited and PrivacyProtect.org,
WIPO Case No. ...Nevertheless, Respondents’ bad faith use and registration of the Domain Name in this case must be established independently from the prior UDRP panel decisions. Teleperformance v. ...
2010-11-26 - Case Details
See Oki Data Americas Inc. v. ASD Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0903. The addition of a generic term does not serve to distinguish the domain name from the trademark, but may reinforce the association of the Complainant's trademark with a domain name. ...D2000-0275; Société Air France v. RBlue,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0290.
In this case, apart from the generic top level domain, the disputed domain name at issue consists of the Complainant's trademark VALIUM and the suffix “plus”. ...
2009-01-06 - Case Details
Inc. v. Cupcake Patrol and
John Zuccarini (WIPO Case No. D2000-0928);
and does not establish any rights or legitimate interest in the domain name
but instead constitutes bad faith The Boeing Company v. ...Inc. v. Moldes Matrices y Diseno
(NAF FA0211000133764) (finding bad faith in respondent’s use of the disputed
domain name for a pornographic website).
...
2005-02-25 - Case Details
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.’”)
...Therefore, the Domain Name is used for commercial purposes and paragraph 4(c)(iii) is not applicable. See Overstock.com, Inc. v. ...
2020-09-25 - Case Details