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
The Complainant submits that its rights in that mark predate the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name . It submits that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its trade mark, because the Disputed Domain Name incorporates in its entirety the WRAYS trade mark and that the similarity is not removed by the addition of the ccTLD “.co” (citing Aktiebolaget Electrolux 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 name monetization unconnected with any bona fide supply of goods or services by the Respondent. ...
2011-11-17 - Case Details
The Complainant asserted that an attempt to sell a domain name through an auction site to the public at large for more than the Respondent's out of pocket costs for registering the domain name constituted bad faith and cited Reckitt Benckiser AG v. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. See, e.g., America Online, Inc. v. Anson Chan,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0004. ...
2008-08-28 - Case Details
Furthermore, the Panel also agrees with the finding of previous WIPO UDRP panels that the use of a mark in its entirety together with a geographic term in a domain name creates a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark. See, e.g., Playboy Enterprises International Inc. v. ...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. ...
2018-07-12 - Case Details
The Panel believes that people considering the disputed domain name without awareness of its content may think that the disputed domain name is in some way connected and associated with the Complainant: this situation is known as “initial interest confusion” (see Covance, Inc. and Covance Laboratories Ltd v. ...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. ...
2014-01-17 - Case Details
These additional terms do not distinguish the domain name in dispute from the Trademark. See PG&E Corp. v. Anderson,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1264; Marriott Int’l, Inc. v. ...It is unquestionable for the Complainant that the Respondent registered the domain name in dispute with full knowledge of Complainant’s rights and interests. See eBay Inc. v. SGR Enterprises,
WIPO Case No. ...
2008-01-15 - Case Details
It is well established, and the Panel agrees, that the addition of a descriptive word to a trademark in a domain name does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity. See Mastercard International Incorporated v. ...Michael D. Darr,
WIPO Case No. D2017-1237; PN II, Inc. v. Isaac Goldstein,
WIPO Case No. D2016-0765; Donna Karan Studio v. Raymond Donn,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0587 (“The fact that the domain name had been registered in the name of the complainant and had expired does not eliminate this bad faith”).
...
2018-04-10 - Case Details
Therefore, the Domain Name is used for commercial purposes and paragraph 4(c)(iii) is not applicable. See
Overstock.com, Inc. v. ...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. ...
2022-08-30 - Case Details
This is commonly tested by comparing the mark and the disputed domain name in appearance, sound, meaning, and overall impression. Mile, Inc. v. Michael Burg,
WIPO Case No. ...D2000-1840 (for offering under paragraph 4(c)(i) to be considered bona fide, domain name use must be in good faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii)). See also Trade Me Limited v. Vertical Axis Inc,
WIPO Case No. ...
2011-06-22 - Case Details
See Société nationale des télécommunications: Tunisie Telecom v.
Ismael Leviste, WIPO Case No. D2009-1529 (noting that passive holding of a disputed domain name “does
not constitute a legitimate use of such a domain name” that would give rise to a legitimate right or interest in
the name); Philip Morris USA Inc. v. ...D2016-1302 (Respondent had no
rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where the disputed domain name resulted to an
inactive website); Philip Morris USA Inc. v. ...
2023-03-15 - Case Details
It is well established that the top-level designation used as part of a domain name should 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. ...
2012-07-04 - Case Details
Id., (citing De Agostini S.p.A. v. Marco Cialone,
WIPO Case No. DTV2002-0005).
In the absence of a response, the Panel accepts as true Complainant’s allegations that Respondent has no authorization to use the SCHICK mark in its domain name and that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.
...Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0003.
Was Respondent aware of Complainant’s trademark and product name before Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name?
...
2013-08-14 - Case Details
Ignoring, as the Panel is entitled to do, the generic “.net” Top Level Domain, the domain name at issue is identical with the Complainant’s trademark rights (see also: Deutsche Post AG v. ...Alberto Rincon Garcia, WIPO Case No. D2002-0806; Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Seweryn Nowak, WIPO Case No. D2003-0022) and under the Policy (see Section 2), that the domain name registrant represents and warrants to the registrar that, to this knowledge the registration of the domain name will not infringe the rights of any third party. ...
2006-04-12 - Case Details
Therefore, the only distinctive element of the disputed domain name consists of the term “AWS”, which is identical to the Complainant’s trademark.
In addition, the “.net” generic Top-Level Domain suffix in the disputed domain name does not affect the determination that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with AWS in which the Complainant has trademark rights (see also Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. ...The Panel finds further, that the Respondent is also using the disputed domain name in bad faith. It is a well established principle in the UDRP decision practice that inaction such as passive holding of a disputed domain name can under certain circumstances constitute a domain name being used bad faith (see as the leading case Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2014-03-19 - Case Details
Weber-Stephen Products Co. v. Armitage Hardware,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0187. See Report of the WIPO Internet Domain Name Process, paragraphs 169 and 170.
...D2001-0031; EAuto, L.L.C. v. Triple S. Auto Parts d/b/a Kung Fu Yea Enterprises, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0047.
Thus, where a respondent registers a domain name consisting of a “dictionary” term because the respondent has a good faith belief that the domain name's value derives from its generic or descriptive qualities rather than its specific trademark value, the use of the domain name consistent with such good faith belief may establish a legitimate interest. ...
2009-05-06 - Case Details
D2012-1081 for the domain name ; Arcadia Group Brands Limited, trading as Topshop v. Richard Yaming,
WIPO Case No. D2012-1490 for the domain name ; Moncler S.p.A. v. Trademark Works, Richard Yaming,
WIPO Case No. D2014-0503 for the domain name ; or Logic Design v. ...
2014-10-09 - Case Details
CBS Broadcasting Inc. v. Worldwide Webs, Inc., WIPO
Case No. D2000-0834 (September 4, 2000). Furthermore, the Domain Name
incorporates the dominant portion of Complainant’s Marks (“HIBBETT”)
and its domain name < hibbett.com> and simply adds the descriptive term
“sporting goods.” ...Rights or Legitimate Interests
It is uncontested that
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its Marks
or domain name in connection with Respondent’s website. Insofar as Complainant
has made a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights to the Domain
Name (Spencer Douglass, MGA v. ...
2007-01-22 - Case Details
(1) The addition of the generic top-level domain (gTLD)
name “.com” is without legal significance since use of a gTLD is
required of domain name registrants; “.com” is one of only several
such gTLDs; and, “.com” does not serve to identify a specific enterprise
as a source of goods or services (Uniroyal Engineered Products, Inc. v. ...D2000-0704;
De Agostini S.p.A. v. Marco Cialone, WIPO
Case No. DTV2002-0005). Once such prima facie case is made, the respondent
carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain
name. ...
2005-06-03 - Case Details
The addition of other terms in the domain name, even derogatory ones, does not affect a finding that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to complainant’s trademark for purposes of the Policy (see Chubb Security Australia PTY Limited v. ...D2006-0451; see also Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. Moreover, the gTLD “.com” is generally without legal significance since use of a gTLD is technically required to operate the Disputed Domain Name and it does not serve to identify the source of the goods or services provided by the registrant of the Disputed Domain Name (see Statoil ASA v. ...
2015-06-03 - Case Details
Each of the four circumstances in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, if found, would be an instance of “registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.”
The Complainant must prove on the balance of probabilities both that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and that it is being used in bad faith (see Riches, McKenzie & Herbert LLP v. ...In appropriate circumstances, the finding that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name may lead to a finding of registration in bad faith (AGUAS DE CABREIROA, S.A.U. v. Hello Domain,
WIPO Case No. ...
2017-12-07 - Case Details