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
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
Mere registration of the disputed domain name may not of itself confer rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name (Terrain Inc. v. ...D2005-0304; Dell Inc. v. George Dell and Dell Net Solutions,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0512).
For the above cited reasons the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. ...
2013-11-18 - Case Details
The use of one’s own first name in a domain name corresponds to a legitimate customary practice and is, as a rule, sufficient evidence of a legitimate right or interest in the disputed domain name (See Penguin Books Limited v. ...D2006-1575; Angélica Fuentes Téllez v. Angelica Jeannette Fuentes Chandía,
WIPO Case No. D2014-1989). Respondent did not contact Complainant to offer the disputed domain name for sale or rent. ...
2015-02-26 - Case Details
Accordingly, for the Complainant to succeed, the Panel must be satisfied that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
With regard to the registration in bad faith of the
disputed domain name, the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark has
been established and the Panel finds that the Respondent knew or should have
known that the disputed domain name was confusingly similar
to a trademark of a third party (See Auchan v. ...Further evidence of the registration in bad faith
of the disputed domain name lies in the fact that the Respondent registered
other domain names identical to well-known trademarks, as stated both in the
present Complaint, in Auchan v. ...
2005-07-18 - Case Details
D2017-0275; Hay & Robertson International Licensing AG v. C. J. Lovik,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0122).
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the GUARANÁ AMAZÔNIA mark of Complainant.
...The Panel concludes that Respondent has registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith. Because the GUARANÁ AMAZÔNIA mark had been 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 this Domain Name (Tudor Games, Inc. v. ...
2021-07-05 - Case Details
The Complainant contends, relying on Rollerblade, Inc. v McCrady,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0429, that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar.
...In appropriate circumstances, the finding that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name may lead to a finding of registration in bad faith (AGUAS DE CABREIROA, S.A.U. v. Hello Domain, supra). ...
2018-02-02 - 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
This was stated by the panel as a factor in the finding of no legitimate interest with the Respondent in case of Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Ron Anderson,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0312.
The Domain Name was registered on December 16, 2010. The mere registration of a domain name does not give the owner a right or a legitimate interest in respect of the domain name. ...By doing this, the Respondent is using the LEGO trademark and misleading Internet users to commercial websites for its own commercial gain and consequently, the Respondent is tarnishing the trademark LEGO.
Further, the use of the Domain Name to host sponsored links is not a bona fide use of the Domain Name, see, e.g., LEGO Juris A/S v. ...
2011-07-08 - Case Details
Because the ROTHSCHILD and ROTHSCHILD & CO marks 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. ...As regards bad faith use, Complainant demonstrated that the disputed Domain Name leads to an inactive website. The non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith (Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2019-12-20 - 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
Servis v. Submachine and Joe Ross,
WIPO Case No. D2001-1042 (“Providing reviews of the author Gary Jennings’ works is fair use of the Domain Name”).
...Western Union Holdings, Inc. v. Manuel Rodriguez,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0850. See also Pancil LLC v. Domain Deluxe,
WIPO Case No. D2003-1035 (finding bad faith where “it is inconceivable that Respondent chose the contested domain name without knowledge of Complainant’s activities and the name and trademark under which Complainant is doing business”).
...
2013-06-20 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is rather unique and specific
to the Complainant and there is no apparent legitimate reason justifying the
offer for sale of the disputed domain name to third parties (Bayerische Motoren
Werke AG v. ...Therefore, nothing prevents the Panel from finding other
circumstances supporting the conclusion that the domain name was registered
and has been used in bad faith.
The nature of the domain name and the manner in which the domain name has been
advertised for sale coupled with the Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate
interests in the domain name are indisputable evidence that the domain name
was registered and has been used in bad faith (Bayerische
Motoren Werke AG v. ...
2003-06-16 - Case Details
D2018-1678; Sanofi v. Linpinfeng,
WIPO Case No. D2018-1441).
Furthermore SANOFI is a fictitious word. Because the SANOFI mark had been widely used and registered at the time of the Domain Name registration by Respondent, the Panel finds likely that Respondent had Complainant’s mark in mind when registering the 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. ...
2019-02-28 - Case Details
D2000-0047 (March 24, 2000) ("When a domain name incorporates, in its entirety, a distinctive mark, that creates a sufficient similarity between the mark and the domain name to render it confusingly similar."); Parfums Christian Dior v. 1 Netpower, Inc., WIPO Case No. ...In Cellular One Group v. Paul Brien, D2000-0028 (WIPO March 10, 2000), Complainant filed a WIPO complaint against the Registrant of domain name . ...
2001-01-30 - Case Details
D2001-0067); in the original use of the disputed domain name to redirect to other website containing content unrelated to the Complainant (Victoria Beckham v. ...Such “bait-and-switch” tactics was held to be evidence of bad faith registrations (Intel Corporation v. The Pentium Group,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0273). Similarly also not using the disputed domain name subsequently, i.e. passively holding it can constitute a factor in finding bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name (Telstra Corp. v. ...
2021-11-24 - Case Details
See, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0429. The distinctive portion of the disputed domain name is thus the textual string to the left of the gTLD designator.
...D2010-1774; Sanofi-Aventis v. Ambien-meds.com,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0859; and ACCOR v For Sale,
WIPO Case No. D2003-1011.
The inclusion of the gTLD “.asia” in the disputed domain name does not affect a finding of confusing similarity. ...
2013-09-03 - Case Details
D2008-1613; Florida Department of Management Services v. Anthony Gorss (or AGCS),
WIPO Case No. D2009-1194). In determining whether a domain name and a trademark are identical or confusingly similar, the gTLD suffix shall be disregarded (DHL Operations B.V. v. ...According to the consensus view of the UDRP panels, once such prima facie case is made, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name (Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0455; Belupo d.d. v. ...
2011-08-19 - Case Details
Trademark Registration No. 24114305 from August 26, 1997, which predates registration of the disputed domain name by some 15 years. Even so, the propriety of a domain name registration may be questioned by comparing it to a trademark registered in any country (see Thaigem Global Marketing Limited v. ...It is well established that the top level designation used as part of a domain name may be disregarded: (see Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2014-02-28 - Case Details
iv) The Complainant submits that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
(v) The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to it.
...In addition, the Panel notes that many UDRP panels have held that bad faith use of a domain name by a respondent may also result from the fact its good faith use is in no way plausible (see Audi AG v. ...
2021-07-16 - Case Details