Richard Sims, WIPO Case No. D2000-0819,
among others for the domain name ; Aventis,
Aventis Pharma SA. v. John Smith, WIPO
Cases No. D2004-0565 and D2004-0624, with further references, for the domain
names and ; Toyota
France and Toyota Motor Corporation v. ...c) It is also established under prior UDRP decisions that whatever motivation
of the Respondent, the fact that the disputed domain name is directed to a pornographic
website can be also an indication that the domain name at issue has been registered
and used in bad faith (See for example, Ty, Inc. v. ...
2005-05-31 - Case Details
B.B. de Boer, WIPO Case
No. D2000-1397 (domain name confusingly similar to
complainant’s NIKE mark); Nike, Inc. v. Paul Verschoor, WIPO
Case No. ...D2004-0020, or FleetBoston Financial Corporation v. Albert Jackson,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0915, there is no
connection between the Marks, the Domain Name, the site of Respondent and the
linked sites. ...
2004-06-23 - Case Details
The Complainant cites Farouk Systems, Inc. v. QYM,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1572 to support its argument that such a behavior constitutes additional bad faith use of the disputed domain name.
...Another indication of bad faith use of the disputed domain names is that the Respondent has concealed its identity behind the name "Domains by Proxy, LLC" (see also La Quinta Worldwide L.L.C. v. ...
2014-12-02 - Case Details
This indicates that Respondent knew of Complainant and chose the Domain Name with knowledge of Complainant and its industry (Pfizer Inc. v. jg a/k/a Josh Green,
WIPO Case No. ...Because the ACCUTANE mark is a fictitious word and therefore highly distinctive and it had been widely registered and used by Complainant at the time of the Domain Name registration, the Panel finds it more likely than not that Respondent had Complainant’s mark in mind when registering this Domain Name (Tudor Games, Inc. v. ...
2019-03-15 - Case Details
Melancia,
WIPO Case No. D2006-1106; AT&T Corp. v. WorldclassMedia.com,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0553; Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. CredoNic.com / Domain Name for Sale,
WIPO Case No. ...Thirdly, the Panel finds, similar to other UDRP panels, that the addition of the generic Top-Level-Domain (gTLD) ”.com” to the Disputed Domain Name does not constitute an element so as to avoid confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy (see, e.g., Volkswagen AG v. ...
2015-03-04 - Case Details
It is well-established that in cases where the distinctive and prominent element of a disputed domain name is the complainant’s mark and the only variation is the addition of a generic word, such variation does not negate the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark (see Oakley, Inc. v. ...D2010-0088; and Missoni S.p.A. v. Ahmed Salman,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1485). The Panel accordingly finds that MISSONI is the distinctive and prominent component of the foregoing Disputed Domain Name, such that the addition of “for target” does nothing to distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from the Complainant’s MISSONI mark.
...
2012-04-26 - Case Details
KG v. Name Redacted,
WIPO Case No. D2020-1149.
The disputed domain name is neither connected to a website nor does it redirect to third party websites.
5. ...Such behaviour cannot constitute a bona fide or legitimate use of the disputed domain name (see also Bright Imperial Ltd. v. Cleiton da Silva Pardim,
WIPO Case No. D2013-1548).
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. ...
2021-06-01 - 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
The Complainant then refers to Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, in order to conclude that the Complainant’s trademark rights and the disputed domain name are so similar that it is not possible to conceive a plausible circumstance in which the Respondent could legitimately use the disputed domain name.
...Furthermore, the gTLD “.cloud” in the disputed domain name does not affect the determination that the disputed domain name is nearly identical to the Complainant’s trademark SPORTSDIRECT and that it is confusingly similar to the SPORTSDIRECT.COM trademark in which the Complainant has rights (see also Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. ...
2017-08-09 - 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
These elements are insufficient to distinguish the Domain Name as referring to an entity other than the Complainant (Patties Foods Limited v. Studio Support, Peter Lock, Ian Cameron,
WIPO Case No. ...D2000-0624 and Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0455).
The Respondent has failed to show that it has acquired any trademark rights in respect of the domain name or that the domain name is used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
...
2010-02-12 - Case Details
This is especially so where the Complainant’s trademark is the sole distinctive portion of the domain name (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Brad Tauer,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1076).
Confusing similarity has been found in cases concerning the trademark CIALIS and the domain name (Lilly ICOS LLC v. ...It also cannot be considered a noncommercial or fair use of the domain name without intention for commercial gain, under paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy (Sanofi-Aventis v. ...
2007-11-26 - 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
See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. The actual circumstances of each case must be examined to determine whether bad faith use can be inferred where the domain name is merely being held. ...See also Forte Communications, Inc. v. Service for Life,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0613, finding bad faith registration and use of a domain name where the respondent had taken no action to use the domain name “to post any content on the Internet or for any other legitimate purpose” and had “taken deliberate steps to conceal its true identity” by providing false information in registering the domain name.
...
2009-06-08 - Case Details
Roust Trading Limited v. AMG LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1857. In this case, the Panel has found that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...See also to similar effect The Hebrew University of Jerusalem v. Alberta Hot Rods,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0616.
For the reasons stated above, the Panel is satisfied that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith. ...
2008-10-16 - Case Details
Prior UDRP panels have found that addition of other terms to a trademark that is recognizable within a disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between a trademark and domain name. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8; see also National City Corp. v. ...LK International AG v. Fundacion Private Whois,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0135. Respondent bears no resemblance to the disputed domain name whatsoever. ...
2021-12-28 - Case Details
The incorporation of a well-known trademark in a domain name has been deemed to be sufficient to show that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s registered trademark (See AREVA v. ...Indeed, the circumstances surrounding the registration of the domain name may allow inferring bad faith use of a domain name, while the latter is passively held (See Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2012-06-05 - Case Details
The
Complainant refers in this context to Zions Bancorporation v. Domain Administrator, Fundacion Private Whois,
WIPO Case No. D2014-0465.
The Complainant argues further that another indication of lack of rights and legitimate interest in the disputed
domain name is the subsequent passively hold of the disputed domain name and refers to Euromarket Designs,
Inc. v. ...Furthermore, the “.com” Top-Level Domain suffix in the disputed domain name does not affect the determination
that the disputed domain name is identical to the AXA trademark in which the Complainant has rights (see also
Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. ...
2024-05-29 - Case Details
In the case at hand, the Panel, in accordance with the Policy paragraph 4(b)(i), deems that the Domain Name was registered and is being used by the Respondent in bad faith in light of the following circumstances:
(i) the Respondent registered the Domain Name, as stated in the Response, for the purpose of reselling it to any interested party, and
(ii) the Respondent actually offered the Domain Name for sale to the Complainant at the price of €10,000.00, which is on the face of it in excess of the out-of-pocket expenses directly related to the Domain Name as pointed out in the Respondent’s letter to the Complainant of October 11, 2007 (Bencom SRL v. ...iii) the Complainant’s FIAT mark is well-known;
(iv) the Panel finds it difficult to conceive of any use of this disputed Domain Name by the Respondent that could not be illegimate.
Finally, also the fact that the Domain Name is parked in a website which through “Sponsored Links” refers to some of the Complainant’s direct competitors’ products has been considered by prior WIPO decisions as an indication of bad faith use of a domain name (Members Equity PTY Limited v. ...
2008-03-11 - Case Details
Ltd. v. Nuclear Marshmallows,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 (respondent had no rights or legitimate interests to use domain name because respondent was not licensed or otherwise permitted to use complainant's trademark).
...The Panel therefore concludes that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name in bad faith.” (Nike, Inc. v. B. B. de Boer,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1397). The same analysis applies here. ...
2009-09-18 - Case Details