D2000-0167, where the domain name was held to be confusingly similar to the trademark nike; Lime Wire LLC v. David Da Silva/Contactprivacy.com,
WIPO Case No. ...Kahveci,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1244 (vestel.com); Paws, Inc. v. Garlfieldonline.com, NAF Case No. FA-097328 (garlfieldonline.com); Victoria's Secret v; This domain name for Sale, NAF Case No. ...
2010-06-29 - Case Details
D2012-1028; Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc./ning ning,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0979.
The addition of the term “official” as a prefix in the disputed domain name does not lessen the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark. ...DCC2012-0001; Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. Liu Ji,
WIPO Case No. D2011-0445.
The Panel therefore concludes that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name, , in bad faith.
7. ...
2012-12-19 - 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
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
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
It is well accepted that a ccTLD may be ignored when assessing identity or confusing similarity of a trademark and a domain name (see, e.g. VAT Holding AG v. Vat.com,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0607; Billa Aktiengesellschaft v. ...D2000-1563 (respondent’s default alone sufficient to conclude that it had no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name). See V&V Supremo Foods, Inc. v. pxlchk1@gmail.com,
WIPO Case No. D2006-1373.
The failure of the Respondent to reply to the Complainant’s contentions and the evidence adduced by the Complainant lead the Panel to find that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...
2012-04-19 - 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
As decided in other UDRP cases, “the test of identity or confusing similarity under the Policy is confined to a comparison of the disputed domain name and the trademark alone”. LEGO Juris A/S v. Name Administrator, Hong Kong Domains, LLC.,
WIPO Case No. ...As decided before, “knowledge of a corresponding mark at the time of registration of the domain name suggests bad faith”. Caixa D´Estalvis I Pensions de Barcelona (“La Caixa”) v. Eric Adam,
WIPO Case No. ...
2015-06-03 - Case Details
See i.e. Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0429 “the specific top level of the domain name such as ‘.net' or ‘.com' does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar”; Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B. v. ...The Panel finds that under the circumstances the use of the disputed Domain Name merely for a pay-per-click page which directs visitors to various third party commercial websites do not constitute a legitimate, noncommercial use of the disputed Domain Name under the Policy, as found in Manheim Auctions Inc. v. ...
2009-05-27 - Case Details
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. ...On any objective view, the Respondent is not a reseller with a legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name such that it could meet the tests set out in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2013-04-03 - Case Details
Second, it is established case law that the specific top level domain “.nl” can be disregarded in assessing the similarity between the relevant trademark on the one hand and the Domain Name on the other (Roompot Recreatie Beheer B.V. v. ...Respondent was involved in at least seven previous .nl domain name disputes of a similar nature involving trademarks and/or trade names (ANWB B.V. v. Lotom Group S.A.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2011-05-04 - Case Details
Such minor alterations do not render the disputed domain name any less confusing for purposes of the confusing similarity analysis. See Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu v. ...Chris McCrady,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0429 (finding that the top level of the domain name, for example “.net”, does not affect the domain name for purposes of assessing whether the domain is confusingly similar); Neiman Marcus Group., Inc. v. ...
2014-02-06 - Case Details
Finally, Complainant contends that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith because (i) Respondent is using the disputed domain name to divert Internet users to a website with links to Complainant's competitors and to take advantage of the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the AMBIANCE ET STYLES trademark, and (ii) Respondent's conduct is a typical behavior demonstrating bad faith registration and use (see OMX, Inc. c/o OfficeMax Incorporated v Domain Administration Limited c/o David Halstead, NAF Case No. ...In Deutsche Telekom AG v. Dong Wang,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0819, the panel held that respondent's use of the domain name for a commercial website with links to competitors of the complainant cannot constitute a bona fide use of the domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. ...
2008-12-02 - 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
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
The addition of the generic top level domain “.com” is not an element of distinctiveness that can be taken into consideration when evaluating the identity and similarity of the Complainant’s trade mark and the Domain Name (see, e.g., Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...The Panel concurs with the understanding of several other UDRP panels that passive holding of a domain name can amount to a respondent acting in bad faith. The concept of passive holding may apply even in the event of mere “parking” by a third party of a domain name (see Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2014-02-26 - Case Details
See, e.g.,
Edmunds.com, Inc v. Triple E Holdings Limited, WIPO
Case No. D2006-1095. Consequently, the misspelling of the trademark ERICSSON
of Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson in the Disputed Domain Name does not prevent
the finding of confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the
trademarks owned by the Complainants.
...See Sanofi-aventis v. Edith Van Der Linden,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0372.
In this case, the registration of the Disputed Domain Name for no reason other
than to connect it to a parking page for “revenue-per-click” does
not of itself give rise to a legitimate interest in respect of the domain name
at issue. ...
2007-03-06 - Case Details
The Panel concludes that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith.
Because the DECATHLON mark had been widely used and registered by Complainant before the Domain Name registration, 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. ...D2017-1490 Decathlon v. Name Redacted,
WIPO Case No. D2015-0198 Decathlon v. Wang Yongwei / Domain Admin, Information Privacy Protection Services Limited).
...
2021-12-17 - Case Details
Hector Rodriguez,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1016 and Bayer Aktiengesellschaft v. Yongho Ko,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0205.
The domain name points to a website consisting of a page displaying sponsored links which are generating revenues via the pay per click system also for the present domain name holder. ...See Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1525.
In the present case, the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark COFFEE-MATE. ...
2008-03-18 - Case Details
The evidence indicates that the Respondent
was aware of and intended to unfairly benefit from the confusing similarity between the disputed domain
name and the ONLYFANS trademark for commercial gain. The Panel concludes that the Respondent
registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith (see Guardant, Inc. v. ...case=D2007-0501
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Fenix International Limited v. PRAKASH Kumar, YTPrakash
Case No. D2024-4805
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. ...
2025-01-09 - Case Details