The Panel has also taken into consideration the fact that the disputed domain name includes English word “usa”. (Expoconsult B.V. trading as CMP Information v. Roc Guan,
WIPO Case No. ...This does not seem to eliminate the identity or at least the similarity between Complainant’s registered trademark and the disputed domain name.
Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark for purposes of the Policy “when the domain name includes the trade mark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2012-02-23 - Case Details
The deletion
of a letter "e" in the disputed domain name adds no distinctiveness
to such domain name, as compared to said trademark.
Paraphrasing AT&T Corp. v. ...Typosquatting has been held under the Policy to be evidence of bad faith registration
of a domain name (see News Group Newspapers Limited and News Network Limited
v. Momm Amed Fa, WIPO Case No. ...
2003-11-25 - Case Details
iv) The Complainant submits that by registering the disputed domain name, the Respondent sought to misleadingly divert consumers for commercial gain.
(v) The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
...Thus, it is close to impossible that the Respondent chose to register the disputed domain name randomly with no knowledge of the Mark. See Barney’s Inc. v. BNY Bulletin Board,
WIPO Case No. ...
2014-09-03 - Case Details
Furthermore, the gTLD “.com” in the disputed domain name does not affect the determination that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark RADIO MARIA in which the Complainant has rights (see also Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. ...The Panel is therefore convinced that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant when it registered the disputed domain name and the Panelist can find no plausible circumstances in which the Respondent could legitimately use the disputed domain name (see also Microsoft Corporation v. ...
2019-08-21 - Case Details
Jason Lau, Sharing,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0783, where the domain name was held to be confusingly similar to the BELSTAFF trademark; Lime Wire LLC v. ...The Respondent is not presently using the Disputed Domain Name other than in connection with a parking page provided by the Registrar. The passive holding of a domain name may amount to bad faith when it is difficult to imagine any plausible future active use of a domain name by the respondent that would be legitimate and would not interfere with the complainant’s well-known mark (see Inter-IKEA v. ...
2018-08-21 - Case Details
See also Longs Drug Stores Cal., Inc. v. Shep Dog,
WIPO Case No. D2004-1069 (finding typosquatting to be evidence of bad faith domain name registration). See also Lexar Media, Inc. v. Huang,
WIPO Case No. D2004-1039 (“Typosquatting has been held under the Policy to be evidence of bad faith registration of a domain name”). ...
2022-03-17 - Case Details
In Solahart Industries Pty Ltd. v. Ciccarelli Luigi,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0051 registration of the domain name with knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark registration and without the Complainant’s consent was held to constitute bad faith registration. ...Identical or Confusingly Similar
The top level domain “.com” is not to be taken into account when considering whether the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark: Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...
2007-06-14 - Case Details
See Yahoo! Inc. v. Eitan Zviely, et al.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0273, June 14, 2000.
Here, Respondent's registered domain name incorporates almost entirely the VoiceStream
Mark, but for the omission of the letter "I"."...EAuto, L.L.C.
v. Triple S Auto Parts, WIPO Case No.
D2000-0047, March 24, 2000.
(2)Here, the domain name is confusingly similar to the VoiceStream Mark because
it omits only a single letter. ...
2002-05-13 - Case Details
As further evidence of the Respondent's bad faith, the Complainant alleges that the Respondent has been involved in numerous prior UDRP proceedings, in which the transfer of the disputed domain name was decided. See Fat Face Holdings Ltd v. Belize Domain WHOIS Service Lt,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0626 (transfer); TV Globo Ltda. v. ...SAND WebNames – For Sale,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0094; Telstra Corp. Ltd. v. Warren Bolton Consulting Pty. Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1293.
Therefore, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered PURINA trademark.
...
2009-06-10 - Case Details
D2007-0693 (concerning the domain name );
(G) Kuoni Reisen Holding AG v. Beroca Holdings B.V.I Limited,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0216 (concerning the domain name );
(H) Kurt Geiger Limited v. Beroca Holdings B.V.I Limited,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0195 (concerning the domain name ); and
(I) Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. v. ...
2009-03-19 - Case Details
The Respondent is Belize Domain WHOIS Service Lt, Belize, Wisconsin, United Sates of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Intercosmos Media Group d/b/a directNIC.com.
3. ...For the purpose of this UDRP proceeding the disputed domain name must be considered confusingly similar to the Complainants trademark (See H-D Michigan, Inc. v. ...
2010-10-01 - Case Details
The Panel finds that under the circumstances, the use of the Domain Name for a pay-per-click page which directs visitors to various third party commercial websites does not constitute a legitimate, noncommercial use of the Domain Name under the Policy, as found in Manheim Auctions Inc. v. ...See also F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Softech Ltd., DNS Administrator (gold), supra: “The website using the disputed domain name contains a search engine with sponsored links. ...
2010-12-22 - Case Details
In Guerlain S.A. v. Peikang,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0055, the panel stated that, “in the absence of any license or permission from the Complainant to use any of its trademarks or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating those trademarks, it is clear that no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the domain name could be claimed by Respondent.” ...The number of third party domain name registrations comprising the trademark LEGO in combination with other words has skyrocketed in recent years (as an indication, see, e.g., the following UDRP Cases: LEGO Juris A/S v. ...
2013-11-04 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name incorporates Complainant’s trademark SECURITAS in its entirety. This is sufficient to establish confusing similarity (Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...Because the SECURITAS mark had been widely used and registered by Complainant at the time of the disputed domain name registration, the Panel finds it more likely than not that Respondent had Complainant’s mark in mind when registering this disputed domain name (Tudor Games, Inc. v. ...
2020-01-06 - Case Details
- That the distinctive element on Complainant's registered trademarks are the terms “Mundo Joven” (and cites TUI AG v. igor golub,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1410).
II. Respondent has no Rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name;
- That Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name in dispute...See, mutatis mutandis, Société Air France v. Bing G Glu,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0834.
Respondent has not submitted any justification for having obtained the disputed domain name after it had been renewed by the Complainant (according to Complainant's uncontested arguments), or for having changed the administrative contact of said domain name. ...
2008-10-28 - Case Details
It is well-settled that the addition of either “.com” or apt descriptive terms is insufficient to avoid a find of confusingly similarly”. See along these lines Alstom v. FM Laughna,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1736, regarding the domain name < alstomparts.com >, stating: “The addition of the term “parts”, a generic term, does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant's trademark. ...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, noncommercial use of the disputed Domain Name under the Policy, as found in Manheim Auctions Inc. v. ...
2010-02-10 - Case Details
Furthermore, it is well established that the top level domain name generally 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. ...There is no evidence that, before notice of the dispute to the Respondent, the Respondent used the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or has been commonly known by the domain name or is making a legitimate non commercial or fair use of the domain name.
...
2009-10-08 - Case Details
Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. v. John Taxiarchos,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0561.
This Panel agrees that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the REVLON mark. ...Furthermore, the Disputed Domain Name includes the entire REVLON mark. This supports a finding of bad faith. See Cellular One Group v. ...
2012-02-01 - Case Details
See, along these lines, LEGO Juris A/S v. F.H.U. Betternet Rafal Biegun,
WIPO Case No. D2011-0939:
“The disputed domain name fully incorporates the famous trademark LEGO. ...See, along these lines, LEGO Juris A/S v. Andrew Vierling,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1913.
Thus, in light of the above, the Panel finds that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
...
2011-10-06 - Case Details
As it has been decided by previous UDRP panels, incorporating a trademark in its entirety can be sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark (see for instance, Casa Editorial El Tiempo, S.A. v. ...Therefore, the addition of the term "carry" cannot avoid similarity nor does it add anything to avoid confusion with the Complainant's trademark. The only distinctive element of the disputed domain name consists of the term "DSV", which is identical to the Complainant's trademark.
In addition, the ".com" Top-Level Domain suffix in the disputed domain name does not affect the determination that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the DSV mark in which the Complainant has rights (see also Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. ...
2016-01-20 - Case Details