Respondent has never been commonly known by the disputed domain name and has never
acquired any trademark or service mark rights in the disputed domain name.
1 Complainant cites, among others, Equifax Inc. v. ...case=D2020-3107
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Equifax Inc. v. Domain Admin, Abadaba S.A.
Case No. D2022-4432
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. ...
2023-01-17 - Case Details
D2000-0150 (transfer ordered where "walmartcanada.com" domain name was found to be confusingly similar to complainant’s WAL-MART trademark); and Cellular One Group v. ...Encyclopaedia Britannica v. Zucarini, D2000-0330 (WIPO June 7, 2000).
A fourth factor is the use of Complainant’s entire mark in the Domain Name, thus making it difficult to infer a legitimate use of the Domain Name by Respondent. ...
2001-01-26 - Case Details
The Panel further finds that the disputed domain name
is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. See
Lockheed Martin Corporation. v. ...See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0662 (domain name
incorporating mark in its entirety is confusingly similar). ...
2005-11-16 - Case Details
Similarly, the addition of a gTLD suffix (“.com”) to a domain name does not detract from the conclusion that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's Trade Mark (see for example Société Air France v. ...It has been held that there is confusing similarity, for the purposes of the Policy, when a disputed domain name wholly incorporates a complainant's mark and only adds a generic word (see for example, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. ...
2010-07-21 - Case Details
Complainant further states that it has found no evidence that Respondent is known by Complainant’s trademarks or has registered or used the domain name as a trademark and is not aware that Respondent is known by the domain name. See Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. ...There is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. See The Caravan Club v. ...
2011-12-01 - 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
iv) The Complainant submits that by its passive holding, the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
(v) The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
...See Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
As previously noted, the Respondent offered no reason for selecting the disputed domain name. ...
2022-02-22 - Case Details
Because the BEOBANK mark 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 (See Tudor Games, Inc. v. ...As regards bad faith use, Complainant demonstrated that the Domain Name currently leads to an inactive website. The non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith (See Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2019-08-26 - Case Details
Such a very minor difference has no relevance for the determination of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark UNITED ARROWS.
Furthermore, the “.com” Top-Level Domain suffix in the disputed domain name does not affect the determination that the disputed domain name is nearly identical with the UNITED ARROWS mark in which the Complainant has rights (see also Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. ...Even if such advertising links served up to visitors on the website associated with the disputed domain name are automated, the Respondent remains responsible for such use (see also Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. ...
2016-03-14 - Case Details
See Red Bull GmbH v. Premiere-PTC-Network,
WIPO Case No. D2008-1077.
The Panel also finds that Respondent is not making bona fide use of the Domain Name under paragraph 4(c), as the Domain Name links to what appears to be a “parked” page. ...Such activity does not provide a legitimate interest in that domain name under the Policy. See M.F.H. Fejlesztõ Korlátolt Felelõsségû v. Satoshi Shimoshita,
WIPO Case No. ...
2019-05-31 - Case Details
The Complainant reiterates that the disputed domain name is not being actively used by the Respondent, submits that the Respondent’s passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes abuse and as such does not preclude a finding of bad faith, citing Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...The Respondent’s 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. ...
2021-06-02 - Case Details
Evidence of which has been provided to the Panel.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark ELECTROLUX. The fame of the trademark has been confirmed in previous WIPO UDRP decisions, for example, AB Electrolux v. ...Further, see also Microsoft Corporation v. J. Holiday Co.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1493, in which it was stated that “[…] consumers expect to find a company on the Internet at a domain name address comprised of the company’s name or trademark.” ...
2011-01-26 - Case Details
Ma Xiaojuan, WIPO Case No. D2015-1733; VKR Holding A/S v. Li Pinglong, WIPO Case
No. D2016-2269.
In the light of the foregoing, there is a confusing similarity between the ALLIED UNIVERSAL Trademarks
and the Domain Name, since the Domain Name reproduces in its entirety the word element of the ALLIED
UNIVERSAL Trademarks.
...If the Respondent was aware of the
Complainant’s prior rights, bad faith may be found in its registration. The Domain Name was
registered after the registration of ALLIED UNIVERSAL Trademarks.
- In addition, the fact that the Respondent registered the domain name alliduniversal.com which was
transferred to the Complainant following a UDPR complaint in 2022 shows that the Respondent is
targeting the Complainant, considering that the Domain Name was registered after a decision was
rendered in the case Universal Services of America, LP d/b/a Allied Universal v. ...
2023-09-19 - Case Details
See also Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, NAF Claim No. 139720 (finding that the WhoIs information and its failure to imply that respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name is a factor in determining whether respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the dispute domain name); Gallup Inc. v. ...UDRP panels have repeatedly held that the specific top level of the domain name such as “.org”, “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar (see Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...
2010-09-21 - Case Details
This indicates that Respondent knew of Complainant and chose the Domain Name with knowledge of Complainant and its industry competitors (Safepay Malta Limited v. ICS Inc.,
WIPO Case No. ...Because the PETPLAN mark had been widely used and registered 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. ...
2018-11-07 - Case Details
See Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., WIPO
Case No. D2000-0020.
Once a complainant makes a prima facie showing that a respondent lacks
rights to the domain name at issue, the respondent must come forward with proof
that it has some legitimate interest in the domain name to rebut this presumption.
...See Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0009.
There is nothing in the record remotely suggesting that the Respondent has
been commonly known by the disputed domain name, or that the Respondent is making
any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. ...
2005-08-16 - Case Details
The Respondent has previously been involved in many domain name cases where the transfer of a domain name to the respective complainant was ordered (see AirTran Holdings Inc. v. ...D2007-1450; Sanofi-Aventis v. The Counsel Group, LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0650).
Furthermore, it is well established that the specific top level domain name is not an element of distinctiveness that can be taken into consideration when evaluating the identity or confusing similarity between the complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name (see Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...
2009-01-09 - Case Details
See i.a., 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 does not constitute a legitimate, non commercial use of the disputed Domain Name under the Policy, as found in Manheim Auctions Inc. v. ...
2009-08-05 - Case Details
The Respondent is Amr saraireh, Rochasperfume, Jordan.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Tucows Inc. ...The fact that the Respondent chose to register the disputed domain name which resolves to a website that
sells products of the Complainant’s competitors suggests that the Respondent knew the Complainant, its
trademarks, and its business when registering the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent has
targeted the Complainant (see section 3.2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0; see also Self-Portrait IP Limited v.
...
2023-05-04 - Case Details
The only reason why the Respondent has chosen the disputed domain name is to exploit the goodwill of the Complainant’s trademark (McDonald’s Corporation v. ZusCom,
WIPO Case No. ...The Complainant respectfully finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name (Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 and World Wrestling Federation Entertainment, Inc. v. ...
2012-09-05 - Case Details