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
In the case at hand, the contested domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s trademark twice. Accordingly, it is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights (The Coca-Cola Company v. ...The Panel finds that under the circumstances the use of the disputed domain name merely to direct visitors to various third party commercial websites does not constitute a legitimate, non-commercial use of the Domain Name under the Policy as held in Manheim Auctions Inc. v. ...
2007-11-06 - 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. ...D2000-0163; and Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Samuel Teodorek,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1814).
The Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name is apparently for domain monetization unconnected with any bona fide supply of goods or services by the Respondent. ...
2012-11-09 - Case Details
The registration and use of the disputed domain name for the purpose of such impersonation does not provide rights to, or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name under the Policy (see Jupiter Investment Management Group Limited v. ...The Panel finds this to be evidence of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name (see Prada S.A. v. Domains For Life,
WIPO Case No. D2004-1019; and Belstaff S.R.L. v. jiangzheng ying,
WIPO Case No. ...
2018-04-23 - Case Details
The addition of the gTLD “.com” to the disputed domain name is a technical requirement of the Domain Name System (DNS) and has no legal significance in the present case (see Section 1.11 of the WIPO Overview 3.0; see also Facebook, Inc. v. ...Alexander Smith,
WIPO Case No. D2020-0227; Oculus VR, LLC v. Sean Lin,
WIPO Case No. DCO2016-0034).
The consensus view among panels appointed under the Policy is that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, such as impersonation or passing off, cannot confer rights or legitimate interests in a domain name (see section 2.13 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, see also Self-Portrait IP Limited v. ...
2020-09-30 - Case Details
Furthermore, according with the Complainant’s view, the Panel finds that the use of a proxy registration service to avoid disclosing the name and contact details of the real owner of the disputed domain name, is also consistent with an inference of bad faith in registering and using the disputed domain name (see Fifth Third Bancorp v. ...Momm Amed Ia,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1623; Nike, Inc. v. Azumano Travel,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1598).
In light of all the above circumstances, the Panel is satisfied that the third element is met and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
7. ...
2016-02-18 - Case Details
D2005-0728). Moreover, a domain name comprising two well-known registered trademarks has been found to be confusingly similar (Time Warner Inc. and EMI Group plc v. ...The addition of other generic terms in the domain name does not affect a finding that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered trademark (Comerica Bank v. ...
2014-10-21 - Case Details
The Panel finds that the test of identical or confusing similarity under the Policy is generally confined to a comparison of the disputed domain name and the trademark alone. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Traffic Yoon,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0812.
...D 2009-0705; America Online, Inc. v. Anson Chan,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0004.
As well the inclusion of the gTLD suffix “.com” does not avoid confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and trademark. ...
2012-02-16 - 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
D2007-0286).
With reference to the use of a domain name to generate confusion with competing activities, see e.g. Edmunds.com, Inc. v. Ult. Search, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2001-1319 (“registration and use of a domain name to redirect Internet users to websites of competing organizations constitutes bad faith registration and use under the Policy.”); NetWizards, Inc. v. ...
2012-08-14 - Case Details
See Match.com, LP v. Bill Zag and NWLAWS.ORG,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0230. As a general rule, when a domain name is registered before any trademark rights are established, the registration of the domain name is not in bad faith since the registrant could not have contemplated the complainant’s non-existent right. ...Match.com, LP v. Bill Zag and NWLAWS.ORG,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0230.
Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy requires proof that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith and is using the domain name in bad faith. ...
2008-03-31 - Case Details
See, e.g., Chinmoy Kumar Ghose v. ICDSoft.com and Maria
Sliwa, WIPO Case No. D2003-0248 (it
could never be a legitimate or fair use to select a domain name which is confusingly
similar to another person’s trade or service mark, with a view to misleadingly
attracting visitors to a website linked to that domain name); Madonna Ciccone,
p/k/a Madonn v. ...See e.g., Hilton Group plc
v. Forum LLC, WIPO Case No. D2005-0244
(use of domain name to attract users for commercial gain is evidence of bad
faith); Volvo Trademark Holding AB v. ...
2006-10-31 - 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 (see Banca Sella s.p.a. v. Mr. Paolo Parente,
WIPO Case No. ...This, in the Panel’s view, justifies a finding that the disputed domain name has been used in bad faith” (see Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. DomainsByProxy.com / Plessers Appliances,
WIPO Case No. ...
2013-02-15 - Case Details
But in Archipelago Holdings LLC v. Creative Genius Domain Sales and Robert Aragon d/b/a Creative Genius Domain Name Sales,
WIPO Case No. ...See Caledonia Motor Group Limited v. Amizon,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0860 (“Respondent's use of the domain name to divert initially to a pornographic website… does not amount to a legitimate interest in the Domain Name”). ...
2008-10-23 - Case Details
The addition of the suffix “.com” does not distinguish the Domain Name from the mark. Omyacolor S.A. v. Recep Tanisman - Emko Emaye A.S.,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0520.
...In the United States of America, where both parties to this UDRP proceeding are located, some courts have held that domain name holders have property rights in domain names. See, e.g., Kremen v. Cohen, 337 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that domain names are intangible property).4 See also Mattel v. ...
2008-02-07 - Case Details
Once the generic “.org” top level domain removed, the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade marks (Banca di Roma S.p.A. v. unasi Inc. a/k/a Domaincar,
WIPO Case No. ...The Respondent may not therefore claim ignorance of the existence of the trademarks at the time of the domain name registration on June 19, 2006. The above circumstances therefore suggest the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith (Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A v. ...
2009-06-23 - Case Details
It is well established that the top-level designation used as part of a domain name should typically be disregarded when considering identity or confusing similarity: (see Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...D2000-0163; and Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Samuel Teodorek,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1814).
The Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name is apparently for domain monetization unconnected with any bona fide supply of goods or services by the Respondent. ...
2014-10-10 - Case Details
The Respondent is John Owens, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).
3. ...D2021-0568; and European Handball Federation v. domain admin, Xedoc Holding SA / Whois Privacy Services Pty Ltd,
WIPO Case No. D2016-0057.
The Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and thereby the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to produce evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
...
2022-01-26 - Case Details
NetMarketing cc,
WIPO Case No. D2005-1216 regarding the domain name and Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. blue crystal,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0630 regarding the domain name ; see also other examples such as Roche Products Limited v. ...D2011-1597; Sanofi-Aventis, Aventis Pharma S.A., Merrell Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. George Breboeuf,
WIPO Case No. D2005-1345).
This Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. ...
2013-01-10 - Case Details