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
The silence of a respondent may support a finding that it has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. See Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc., v. Lauren Raymond,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0007; Ronson Plc v. ...See Dylos Corporation v. Yang,
WIPO Case No. D2015-1959 (finding bad faith registration and use where the website to which the disputed domain name resolved mirrored the complainant’s site suggesting a desire to make commercial gain from the use of the disputed domain name and/or to defraud consumers); Allianz SE v. ...
2021-03-23 - Case Details
D2010-0139; Parfums Christian Dior v. Javier Garcia Quintas and Christiandior.net,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0226.
B. Respondent
(1) The Disputed Domain Name Is Identical or Confusingly Similar to the Complainant’s Trademark
The Respondent agrees that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights...ABCSites, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0880; A & H Sportswear Co., Inc. v. Hu Yanlin, supra; Kur- und Verkehrsverein St. Moritz v. StMoritz.com,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0617.
Moreover, the Respondent argues that the precedent cases that were cited by the Complainant in the Complaint can be distinguished from the case at issue because the disputed domain name has never been used for commercial gain and that the website hosted at the disputed domain name was used for informational purpose for one product for more than seven years without any form of advertising or ecommerce.
...
2010-12-16 - Case Details
On any objective view, indeed on any view, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a domain name incorporating the Complainant’s mark, such that it could meet the tests set out in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ...The trademark ENTERPRISE is so widely known internationally for car hire that it is inconceivable that the Respondent might have registered a domain name similar to this mark without knowing of it. In this Panel’s view, the Respondent’s advice that the Disputed Domain Name “has been deactivated and (is) not in use anymore” warrants an adverse inference to be drawn (see Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2012-05-23 - Case Details
Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1525. Based on such a comparison, the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s mark.
...Match.com, LP v. Bill Zag and NWLAWS.ORG,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0230.
The fact that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name after the Complainant had allowed the prior registration of the domain name to lapse is not in and of itself evidence of bad faith. ...
2008-04-03 - 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
The addition of the letter “s” does not distinguish the Domain Name from the ROTHSCHILD trademark. See ESH Strategies Branding, LLC v. Kumpol Sawaengkarn,
WIPO Case No. ...MARLINK SAS v. Stephen Okonkwo,
WIPO Case No. D2017-1356.
The fact that the Domain Name was not used in connection with a competing website does not obviate a finding of bad faith. ...
2019-05-27 - Case Details
It is clear, however, that the respondent must be using the domain name not in the trademark sense but in the descriptive sense, to communicate some aspect of the services offered.”); Havanna S.A. v. ...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Complainants must prove on the balance of probabilities both that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and that is being used in bad faith (see e.g. Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2015-09-18 - Case Details
See Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0429: “It is already well established that 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.”
...The addition of the words “agro” and “pl” do not eliminate the confusing similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. See BASF SE v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Paul Okeke,
WIPO Case No. D2020-2763, and Conair Corporation v. ...
2022-01-04 - Case Details
That it is likely that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent the
Complainant from using its ENERGIZER trademark in the disputed domain name, and to prevent the
Complainant from registering the disputed domain name, which constitutes evidence of bad faith (and cites
L’oreal v. ...The use of a domain name for illegal purposes, such as phishing, also constitutes bad faith under the
Policy (see Arla Foods Amba v. ...
2025-01-13 - 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
DCO2017-0043 (citing Longs Drug Stores California, Inc. v. Shep Dog,
WIPO Case No. D2004-1069 (finding typosquatting to be evidence of bad faith domain name registration); Lexar Media, Inc. v. ...See, e.g., Terex Corporation v. Williams Sid, Partners Associate,
WIPO Case No. D2014-1742 (“Respondent was using the disputed domain name in conjunction with…an email address for sending scam invitations of employment with Complainant”); and Olayan Investments Company v. ...
2021-06-04 - Case Details
Petitioner
The Petitioner is VOI Technology AB of Sweden, represented by Brimondo AB, Sweden.
2. Domain Holder
The Domain Holder is Domain Department, Arcanite Media Ltd., of Belize.
3. Domain Name and Procedural History
This Alternative Dispute Resolution proceeding relates to the domain name .
...Moreover, the Domain Holder has
previously been engaged in at least five ccTLD domain name disputes: Swedish Match North Europe AB v.
...
2022-03-29 - Case Details
It has been held that the sale of a generic domain name of itself may constitute use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services (see e.g., Allocation Network GmbH v. ...Panels have held that the first person to register a descriptive or generic domain name in good faith is entitled to the domain name (see e.g., Target Brands, Inc. v. Eastwind Group, NAF Claim No. 267475; HP Hood LLC v. hood.com, NAF Claim No. 313566; CRS Technology Corporation v. ...
2012-05-31 - Case Details
See Microsoft Corp. v. Mehrotra,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0053 (finding that the domain name is identical to the complainant’s mark); see also Sea World, Inc. v. ...The Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks. See Burberry Limited v. Jonathan Schefren,
WIPO Case No. ...
2011-04-07 - 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
John Zuccarini,
supra;
Time
Warner Entertainment
Company
LP v. John
Zuccarini,
supra.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in dispute.
...And
Sanrio,
Inc. v.
Neric Lau,
WIPO
Case No.
D2000-0172
(April 20, 2000).
The Complainant alleges that Respondent’s attempts to sell the domain name in dispute for amounts in excess of its registration costs provides further evidence of its bad faith intent. ...
2003-08-28 - Case Details
It is well established that the gTLD is a technical part of a domain name and may be disregarded for the purposes of finding confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant’s trademark (see, Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. ...The relevant comparison to be made is with the second-level portion of the Disputed Domain Name, specifically: “qantasstore”.
It is also well established that where a domain name wholly incorporates a complainant’s trademark in its entirety, it can be confusingly similar to that trademark (see: Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...
2019-08-23 - Case Details
See Ansell Healthcare Products Inc. v. Australian Therapeutics Supplies Pty, Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0110, stating “The incorporation of a Complainant’s well-known trademark in the registered Domain Name is considered sufficient to find the Domain Name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark”.
...Top Business Names, supra (the domain name is confusingly similar to AAA Marks for automotive goods and services); see also The American Automobile Association, Inc. v. ...
2017-03-03 - Case Details
See, PMG v. Popic, supra (
domain name is confusingly similar to [PMG’s] family of marks because
it incorporates the PRIVATE mark of [PMG] with a generic word and ordering transfer
of infringing name); Cine Craft Limited v. ...D2001-0500 (domain name was confusingly
similar to registered marks BUD and BUDWEISER); Pivotal Corporation v. ...
2004-12-23 - Case Details