D2004-0246 (geographic identifiers in a domain name “increase the likelihood of confusion between the domain names and the marks”); Six Continents Hotels Inc. v. ...This increases the likelihood of consumer confusion.”); Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. credoNIC.com / DOMAIN FOR SALE,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0987(in ordering transfer of domain name , the panel said: “there is sufficient precedent for finding that the addition of a geographic term or name to a distinctive mark suggests that the domain name is the domain name of Complainant in that particular location”); Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. ...
2012-06-06 - Case Details
Scope of the Policy
The Policy is addressed to resolving disputes concerning allegations of abusive domain name registration and use. See Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation v. Bay Verte Machinery, Inc. d/b/a The Power Tool Store,
WIPO Case No. ...Thus, the consensus view is that paragraph 4(c) shifts the burden of production to the respondent to come forward with evidence of a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, once the complainant has made a prima facie showing. See, e.g., Document Technologies, Inc. v. ...
2014-11-12 - Case Details
See Fitness Anywhere, Inc. v. Simon Onil, NAF Claim No. 1372345 (finding confusing similarity between the domain name and the complainant’s TRX and SUSPENSION TRAINING marks, even though the domain name added the generic word “sale” and removed the word “training”); Philip Morris USA Inc. v. ...D2013-1087 (finding confusing similarity between the domain name and the complainant’s MARLBORO mark, even though the domain name added the “generic descriptive” word “team”); Tommy Bahama Group, Inc. v. ...
2014-01-24 - Case Details
D2010-0515 (); Associazione Radio Maria v. Ho Nim,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0607 ();
- The disputed domain name redirects to a parking page that contains several links sponsoring online radios which have no connections with the Complainant;
- The disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s RADIO MARIA trademark with the addition of the letters “fm” at the end which is, pursuant to the Complainant, a negligible difference between the Complainant’s trademarks and the disputed domain name. ...D2008-0477; and Associazione Radio Maria v. Hostmaster Hostmaster, Domain Park Limited, supra).
Regarding the applicable generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) “.org” in the disputed domain name, it is a consensus view that it is usually disregarded under the confusing similarity test (see paragraph 1.2 of the WIPO Overview 2.0).
...
2017-05-04 - Case Details
Indeed, the disputed domain name reproduces Complainant’s trademarks CARREFOUR and BANQUE CARREFOUR in their entirety.
Complainant’s trademarks have been considered to be “well-known” or “famous” by numerous UDRP previous panels (Carrefour v. ...Privacy Locked LLC/Nat Collicot,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0320; The Gap, Inc. v. Deng Youqian,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0113). It is implausible that Respondent was unaware of Complainant when he registered the disputed domain name.
...
2019-10-18 - Case Details
Previous panels have found that generic use of a disputed domain name for PPC links by a domainer can amount to a legitimate interest (Havanna S.A. v. Brendhan Hight, Mdnh Inc.,
WIPO Case No. ...Alghanim & Sons W.L.L. v. Anees Salah Salameh,
WIPO Case No. D2018-1231). Specifically, the Respondent claims that the Disputed Domain Name was registered because it belonged to a defunct business, and because the Disputed Domain Name is attractive because it contains the words “autorental” twice, which boosts traffic. ...
2019-11-08 - Case Details
The relevant comparison to be made is with the second-level portion of the domain name only (i.e., “wwwvolkswagen”), as it is well-established that the top-level domain name (i.e., “.com”) should be disregarded for this purpose (see Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. v. ...Because of both the visual similarity and the potential for typo-piracy, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark VOLKSWAGEN (see also Reuters Limited v. ...
2013-01-03 - Case Details
The Respondent is Carolina Rodrigues, FCS Holdings Corp of Santiago, Chile.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is . It is registered with Power Brand Center Corp. ...D2007-0337; and Scania CV AB (Publ) v. ScaniaFinance.co.uk,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0113. For those reasons, the Panel considers the appropriate test for confusing similarity to be a literal comparison of the disputed domain name and the Complainants’ trademark.
...
2012-05-15 - Case Details
As referenced by the Complainant, UDRP panels have considered NOVOTEL to be well known or even famous (Accor v. Shinwute K.,supra; Accor v. Value-Domain, Inc.,supra; Accor v. ji kai jun, supra).
The issue of whether a domain name is confusingly similar to a mark is determined through a direct comparison of the mark and the domain name (Group Kaitu, LLC, Darkside Productions, Inc. v. NetDirect,
WIPO Case No. D2011-0220). When a domain name incorporates a distinctive mark in its entirety, it creates sufficient similarity between the mark and the domain name to render it confusingly similar (EAuto, L.L.C. v. ...
2016-02-17 - Case Details
Hence, as a matter of fact, it cannot be inferred that Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of disputed domain name (Credit Industriel et Commercial S.A. v. XUBO,
WIPO Case No. D2006-1268 and Société nationale des télécommunications: Tunisie Telecom v. ...D2009-0320; The Gap, Inc. v. Deng Youqian,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0113). It is implausible that Respondent was unaware of Complainant when he registered the disputed domain name.
...
2019-10-18 - Case Details
Inja Kil, WIPO Case No. D2000-1409;
and America Online, Inc. v. Chris Hoffman, WIPO
Case No. D2001-1184).
The other difference between the contested domain name and the Complainants'
trademark UPS, is the addition of the generic top-level domain (gTLDs) ".com"
to the said domain name, which is completely without legal significance. ...See AltaVista
Company v. Andrew Krotov WIPO Case No.
D2000-1091).
The Panel thus finds that Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...
2004-05-24 - Case Details
D2010-2161; Allianz SE v. Antonio Porchia,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0694). Consequently, this Panel finds that the addition of the generic term “commercial” does not prevent the disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Trademark.
Fourthly, this Panel finds that, in the circumstances of this case, the addition of the gTLD “.com” to the disputed domain name does not constitute an element so as to avoid confusing similarity for UDRP purposes (see Volkswagen AG v. ...
2016-02-26 - Case Details
D2000-0113, The Stanley Works and Stanley Logistics, Inc. v. Camp Creek Co., Inc.). The domain name associates Complainant’s trademark MICHELIN with the letters “bt”. ...D2008-0287, Alstom v. Domain Investments LLC;
WIPO Case No. D2007-0077, NBC Universal Inc. v. Szk.com). Under Section 2 of the ICANN Policy, it is established that when someone registers a domain name, he represents and warrants to the registrar that, to his knowledge, the registration of the domain name will not infringe the rights of any third party. ...
2021-02-22 - Case Details
This link appears plausible in view of the following:
- The Respondent registered the Domain Name precisely the day after the decision Caterpillar, Inc. v. Roy Weijden, supra involving the domain name was notified to the parties; and
- The domain name and the Domain Name were registered using the same registrar and name servers.
5. ...D2005-0517; and Pepsico, Inc. v. Domain Admin,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0435).
While the above suffices to conclude that the Domain Name has been registered in bad faith, it should be noted that a link seems to exist between this matter and a prior domain name dispute involving the domain name which has been transferred to the Complainant pursuant to the decision in Caterpillar, Inc. v. ...
2016-01-18 - Case Details
In Drexel University v. David Brouda,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0067, the panel stated that “rights or legitimate interests cannot be created where the user of the domain name at issue would not choose such a name unless he was seeking to create an impression of association with the Complainant.”. ...ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd v. Mark Maddison,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0538). While a likelihood of confusion can already be present where two trademarks owned by two unrelated companies are combined in a domain name (as held in Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company v. ...
2013-02-21 - Case Details
See Annex 8. Case law holds that merely “parking” a domain name does not establish any right or legitimate interest in the domain name by Respondent. See VeriSign Inc. v. ...Case law holds that merely “parking” a domain name does not establish any right or legitimate interest in the domain name by the Respondent. See VeriSign Inc. v. ...
2011-08-10 - Case Details
The Complainant asserts that WIPO 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. ...Baldrick's Foundation Inc. v. Web Advertising,Corp., supra.
Therefore, the Panel finds it more likely than not that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
...
2011-02-14 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered SWAROVSKI trademarks because (i) consumers expect to find a trademark owner on the Internet at a domain name address comprised of the company’s name or mark; (ii) Respondent’s use of the Complainant’s trademark causes confusion among Internet users between the disputed domain name and Swarovski approved websites; (iii) the content of a website at a domain name is irrelevant in the finding of confusing similarity and the real test for confusing similarity is whether a comparison between the trademark and the domain name reveals that there is a likelihood of confusion; (iv) the addition of the term “new” as a prefix and of the term “sale” as a suffix does not lessen the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s trademark; and (v) a domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark when the domain name incorporates the mark in its entirety.
...Finally, the addition of the suffix “.com” is non-distinctive because it is required for the registration of the disputed domain name. See RX America, LLC v. Mattew Smith,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0540; and Sanofi-Aventis v. US Online Pharmacies,
WIPO Case No. ...
2014-03-20 - Case Details
The Respondent’s registration
of the disputed domain name and use of the domain name causes or is likely to
cause consumer initial interest confusion [1].
...For a typical
US case see Sporty’s Farm L.L.C. v. Sportsman’s Market, Inc., 202 F.3d
489, 497-98 (2d Cir. 2000) (the differences between the trademark "sporty’s"
and the domain name – specifically, an apostrophe in the
trademark and the addition of .com in the domain name – are "inconsequential,"
such that the domain name is "indistinguishable" from and "certainly
‘confusingly similar’ to the protected mark").
3. ...
2001-10-08 - Case Details
The omission of the letter “a” in the “insta” portion of the second Domain Name is disregarded, as it is not readily noticeable (Minerva S.A. v. TT Host,
WIPO Case No. D2016-0384; mytheresa.com GmbH v. ...D2016-0256) and ii) Respondent’s registration of the second Domain Name subsequent to the bad faith registration and use of the first Domain Name, which targeted also Complainant’s marks, thereby indicating the implausibility of any good faith use to which the second Domain Name may be put (Instagram, LLC v. ...
2018-09-24 - Case Details