Respondent is Eclean, Herdi Kusuma of Jakarta, Indonesia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with UK2 Group Ltd.
3. ...The Center verified that the satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
...
2012-07-19 - Case Details
As the Panel has found that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, in line with other prior UDRP decisions (Banca Sella s.p.a. v. Mr. Paolo Parente,
WIPO Case No. ...Indeed, the Respondent asked an amount of USD 100 for the transfer of the disputed domain name and, according to previous UDRP decisions (DHL Operations B.V. v. Karel Salovsky,
WIPO Case No. ...
2013-02-01 - Case Details
Alan Truskowski,
WIPO Case No. D2006-1606 (disputed domain name parked with GoDaddy.com does not indicate any right or legitimate interest in the domain name); Eveready Battery Company, Inc. v. ...D2003-1005 (“The panel concludes…that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate internet in the domain name [because] the domain name is not in use as the domain name of an active website [having] been parked for over two years.”); Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. v. ...
2008-06-11 - Case Details
Abdallah Sheet, NAF Claim No. 165119 (“addition of the top level domain “.com” is irrelevant in determining whether a domain name is identical to a mark”); Philip Morris USA Inc. v. ...These facts are enough to demonstrate, prima facie, the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See CIMB Group Sdn. Bhd. & CIMB-Principal Asset Management Berhad v. PrivacyProtect.org / Cyber Domain Services Pvt. ...
2013-11-05 - 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
This clearly demonstrates that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name based on the attractiveness of Complainant’s mark to divert Internet traffic to its website and refers to Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. ...This was found in Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows (
WIPO Case No. D2000-0003) in which the Panel concluded that Respondent’s passive holding of the domain name satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(iii) that the domain name was being used in bad faith by Respondent.
...
2019-05-02 - 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
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
Panels acting under the Policy have held that in certain circumstances registration of a domain name incorporating another’s well-known mark does not confer any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name to the respondent, but rather indicates bad faith under the Policy (see Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...Sonoma International LDC,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0131; Expedia, Inc. v. Miles Pennella,
WIPO Case No. D2001-1416), and that other circumstances may constitute evidence showing that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (Telstra v. ...
2010-09-17 - 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
See, e.g., Old Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0903 (“when a domain name incorporates a complainant’s mark in its entirety, it is confusingly similar to that mark despite the addition of other words”); and Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...The inclusion of the gTLD descriptor “.com” in the disputed domain name does not affect a finding of confusing similarity. UDRP panels have repeatedly held that the specific top level of the domain name such as “.org”, “.net” or “.com” generally does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar (see Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...
2014-11-28 - Case Details
The Respondent is Digi Real Estate Foundation of Panama City, Panama.
2. The Disputed Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is . It is registered with the domain name registrar Rebel.com Services Corp, of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (the “Registrar”).
3. ...On its own initiative, the Panel accessed the website using the disputed domain name. (This practice has been adopted by numerous panels: see Corinthians Licenciamentos LTDA v. ...
2007-08-28 - 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
Vadim Krivitsky,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0396; Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Spider Webs, Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0398.
Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name incorporates and is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ROLEX Mark, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, and that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.
...See Malwarebytes, Corp. v. Charlie Jones,
WIPO Case No. D2014-0226 (“Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for any reason except automatically to redirect Internet users to its own site. ...
2014-05-26 - 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
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
D2012-1028; Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc./ning ning,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0979.
The addition of the term “outletsale” as a suffix in the disputed domain name attenuates such confusion that the “outletsale” is being offered by the Complainant, which is clearly not the case. ...DCC2012-0001; Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. Liu Ji,
WIPO Case No. D2011-0445.
The Panel concludes that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name, in bad faith.
7. ...
2012-12-19 - Case Details
The mere fact that the Complainant’s well-known trademark is
used in the Disputed Domain Name amounts to an infringement, as held in Deutsche
Bank Aktiengesellschaft v. New York TV Tickets Inc., WIPO
Case No. ...See finally also Benetton Group SpA
v. Domain for Sale., WIPO Case No. D2001-1498,
where the Panel stated “the use of Complainant’s trademark for a
domain name used for a website which directs Internet users to pornographic
websites also constitutes evidence of bad faith usage of the Disputed Domain
Name in question. ...
2005-01-10 - Case Details