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 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
D2010-0694 and Alstom v. Value-Domain Com,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1249).
The domain name further incorporates the common generic English words HELP and LINE. ...However, the Panel takes it into consideration in evaluating whether Respondent has been using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Offers to sell a domain name have previously been held to constitute bad faith use of a domain name (Research In Motion Limited v. ...
2010-12-02 - 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
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., Arkema France v. Steve Co., Stave Co Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2017-1632.
Finally, the use of a deceptive domain name for an email scam has previously been found by panels to be sufficient to establish that a domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. ...
2019-10-29 - 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
D2012-1028; Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc./ning ning,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0979.
The addition of the term “outletsale” as a suffix in the disputed domain name attenuates such confusion that the “outletsale” is being offered by the Complainant, which is clearly not the case. ...DCC2012-0001; Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. Liu Ji,
WIPO Case No. D2011-0445.
The Panel concludes that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name, in bad faith.
7. ...
2012-12-19 - 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
This Panel finds on the basis of previous UDRP decisions that it is established that where the disputed domain name incorporates a complainant’s registered trademark, this may be sufficient to establish that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy (Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...D2006-1254; France Telecom v. Richard J.,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0807; Nexity S.A. v. Richard J.,
WIPO Case No. D2011-0577).
This Panel further notes that the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. ...
2014-04-17 - Case Details
The panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.
Although the respondent has not used the disputed domain name in the usual sense, the "use" of a domain name in bad faith does not necessarily mean use on the Internet: Bayshore Vinyl Compounds Inc. v. ...Dennis Toeppen (Case D2000-0400); Video Networks Limited v. Larry Joe King (Case D2000-0487); Recordati S.P.A. v. Domain Name Clearing Company (Case D2000-0194) and Revlon Consumer Products Corporation v. ...
2000-10-10 - 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 Roust Trading Limited v. AMG LLC, WIPO Case No.
D2007-1857.
Most importantly, Complainant contends Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection
with a bona fide offering of goods or services, but “warehousing” the disputed domain name because the
disputed domain name resolves to an inactive website and appears to be passively held. ...UDRP panels have repeatedly held that
warehousing a domain name that is confusingly similar to a well-known mark is not a legitimate use. See,
e.g., Société nationale des télécommunications: Tunisie Telecom v. ...
2024-10-09 - Case Details
It further finds that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.”); see also, CMA CGM v. Diana Smith,
WIPO Case No. D2015-1774 (finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name holding, “such phishing scam cannot be considered a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name”.) ...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. ...
2019-08-07 - 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
It is well established in previous UDRP cases that, where a domain name incorporates the Complainant’s registered trademark, this may be sufficient to establish that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy (see Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...D2000-0003; Cellular One Group v. Paul Brien,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0028.
In addition, the Panel notes that the non-use of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding.
...
2018-12-10 - Case Details
See Association des Centres Distributeurs E. Leclerc - A.C.D. Lec v. Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org / Ghuilo Dhulio,
WIPO Case No. D2020-2200).
Complainant contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. ...The fact that the Disputed Domain Name is not being used does not preclude a finding of bad faith (see section 3.3 of WIPO Overview 3.0 and Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2021-06-14 - Case Details
See, RapidShare AG, Christian Schmid v. InvisibleRegistration.com, Domain Admin,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1059.
Complainant states that the disputed domain name features the acronym “mena,” added to Complainant’s trademark VIVENDI. ...Other 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. ...
2011-04-07 - Case Details
ii) Khadi & Village Industries Commission v. Srinivas Balasani, WIPO Case No. D2021-1374, wherein the
panel, while judging the similarity between the domain name and trademark KHADI,
found that “the essential part of the disputed domain name is the KHADI mark. ...The Panel finds it useful to refer to the decision in the case of Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. v.
Voguechen, WIPO Case No. D2014-0657, holding that – “where a domain name incorporates the entirety of
a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name,
the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP
standing.”
...
2022-06-29 - Case Details
See Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
By not submitting a Response, the Respondent offered no reason for selecting the disputed domain name. ...Where a respondent knew or should have known of a trademark prior to registering a domain name containing this mark, such conduct may also suggest bad faith. See Weetabix Limited v. Mr. J. ...
2016-12-29 - 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