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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Indeed, persons accessing the domain name would be bound to believe that the domain name has a connection with the Complainant.
(v) Furthermore, the addition of the gTLD “.com” which is required for registration of a domain name, has no distinguishing capacity in the context of the domain name and does not alter the value of the trademark represented in the domain name (Telecom Personal v. namezero.com,
WIPO Case No. ...v) There is no doubt that the Respondent knowing of the launch of a new product under the trademark ACOMPLIA by the Complainant, registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent the Complainant from adopting the trademark in a corresponding domain name. ...
2007-09-13 - 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
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
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
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
Bad faith has already been established where a domain name is so obviously connected with a well-known trademark that its very use by someone with no connection to the trademark suggests opportunistic bad faith (LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0494; Sanofi-aventis v. Nevis Domains LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0303). There is no doubt to this Panel that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name to prevent the Complainant from reflecting its trademark in the disputed domain name and that this type of conduct constitutes evidence of the Respondent’s bad faith (L’oreal v. ...
2012-12-27 - Case Details
It is well-established that for the purposes of making the comparison between the Disputed Domain Name and the trademark, the top-level designation used as part of a domain name should be disregarded: (see Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...In particular, proceedings must not be commenced in an unjustifiable attempt to pressure a domain name owner into releasing a legitimately held domain name predating any trademark rights held by the complainant, see Sustainable Forestry Management Limited v. ...
2012-05-31 - 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
Indeed, Respondent has maintained the website at the disputed domain name despite the Complainant’s objections.
Such silence, ongoing cybersquatting, and dilution are further evidence of Respondent’s bad faith (see Compiere Inc. v. ...This, in the Panel’s view, justifies a finding that the disputed domain name has been used in bad faith” (see Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. DomainsByProxy.com / Plessers Appliances,
WIPO Case No. ...
2011-12-19 - Case Details