Lian Ming, WIPO
Case No. D2003-0266). Moreover, the place where a domain name has been registered
is irrelevant if the corresponding trademark has acquired world-wide fame (Microsoft
v. ...D2000-0137 and Consitex S.A. , Lanificio Ermenegildo Zegna &
Figli S.p.A. , Ermenegildo Zegna Corporation v. Mr. Lian Ming, WIPO
Case No. D2003-0266).
Furthermore, the Panel holds that Respondent equally used the domain name in bad faith. ...
2004-02-06 - Case Details
D2012-1028; Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc./ning ning,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0979.
The addition of the term “official” as a prefix in the disputed domain name does not lessen the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark. ...DCC2012-0001; Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. Liu Ji,
WIPO Case No. D2011-0445.
The Panel therefore concludes that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name, , in bad faith.
7. ...
2012-12-19 - Case Details
KG v. Pertshire Marketing, Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0762).
The Domain Name incorporates the Complainant's NATURA mark in its entirety. ...There have been a number of cases in which "registration" was held to include subsequent acquisitions of a domain name (See BWR Resources Ltd v. Waitomo Adventures Ltd,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0861 and Motorolla, Inc. v. ...
2010-12-08 - Case Details
The panel in Microsoft Corporation v. Mike Rushton, WIPO
Case No. D2004-0123 stated that “use of the domain name to resolve
to a blank website is not a bona fide use.” The panel in Dorotheum
GmbH & Co KG v. Norbert Gartner, WIPO
Case No. D2005-0408 stated that “an inactive holding of a domain
name with a blank webpage also demonstrates bad faith use of a domain name under
the Policy.”
...
2006-08-30 - Case Details
Complainant further submits that part of the suffix of the disputed domain name, “florida” gives reference to the State of Florida in United States. In PepsiCo, Inc. v. QWO,
WIPO Case No. ...See, e.g., Reuters Limited v. Global Net 2000, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0441.
The inclusion of the top level domain descriptor “.com” in the disputed domain name does not affect a finding of confusingly similarity. ...
2011-09-22 - Case Details
Several WIPO UDRP decisions state that confusing similarity, for the purposes of the Policy, is established when a domain name wholly incorporates a complainant's mark and only adds a generic word (see i.e., Deutsche Telekom AG v. ...Only someone who was familiar with the Complainant's marks would have registered the confusingly similar domain name (see Aventis, Aventis Pharma SA. v. John Smith,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0850; AT&T Corp. v. Xinzhiyuan Management Consulting Co., Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2009-11-20 - 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. ...The Panel accepts that the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s MISSONI trade mark at the time of registering the Disputed Domain Name, based in part on the worldwide fame of the MISSONI trade mark as accepted by various WIPO UDRP panelists in previous domain name proceedings involving the Complainant (see Missoni S.p.A. v. ...
2012-08-15 - 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
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
Ownership of a registered mark to which a disputed domain name is confusingly similar satisfies paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See Consorzio del Formaggio Parmigiano Reggiano v. ...See Yakka Pty Ltd. v. Mr. Paul Steinberg,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0502. No evidence suggests the Respondent has ever been called by any name incorporating the Mark or been commonly known by the Mark or the Domain Name. ...
2012-04-13 - Case Details
It is therefore inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of LE MERIDIEN trademarks when he registered the disputed domain name (Heineken Brouwerijen B.V. v. Mark Lott,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1487). The mere fact that the Respondent registered the confusingly similar disputed domain name without authorization is evidence of its bad faith registration (Veuve Cliquot Ponsardin, Maison Fondee en 1772 v. ...This Panel finds that, before adopting a domain name a registrant should perform a trademark, service mark or trade name search prior to adopting a disputed domain name (America Online, Inc. v. ...
2011-04-14 - Case Details
Finally, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s lack of legitimate interest in the disputed domain name is also shown by the fact that no response was filed by the Respondent.
According to earlier decisions (see Pomellato S.p.A. v. ...In many prior UDRP decisions, it is established that the use of false contact information is an indication that the Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith (See Chanel v. 1,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0218; Action Instruments, Inc v. Technology Associates,
WIPO Case No. ...
2008-07-11 - Case Details
Such use is further evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. See American University v. Richard Cook, NAF Claim No. FA0311000208629 (“Registration and use of a domain name that incorporates another's mark with the intent to deceive Internet users in regard to the source or affiliation of the domain name is evidence of bad faith.”); see also Perot Systems Corporation v. ...This is sufficient to establish that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. See for example Aubert International SAS and Aubert France SA v. Tucows.com Co.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2012-04-25 - Case Details
D2002-0158; DHL Operations B.V. and DHL International GmbH v. Diversified
Home Loans, WIPO Case No. D2010-0097. The Domain Name contains Complainant’s CIC Mark in its
entirety and is recognizable within the Domain Name. ...Domain Administrator, See
PrivacyGuardian.org / Xian Xing Hao, WIPO Case No. D2019-2599 (finding no rights or legitimate interests
where respondent is using the domain name for commercial gambling and pornography site with no
apparent connection to the Domain Name); Hartsfield Area Transportation Management Association, Inc. v.
...
2022-03-01 - Case Details
Even in the absence of a
fee paid by Respondent’s use of Complainant’s Mark to divert
users from the Disputed Domain Name to cannot constitute a
legitimate use of the Disputed Domain Name. (See Chanel, Inc. v. ...Playboy Enterprises International,
Inc. v. Hector Rodriguez.
The Panel finds that Complainant has proved that the Disputed Domain Name
is confusingly similar to Complainant’s Mark under Paragraph 4(a)(i) of
the Uniform Policy.
...
2002-06-17 - Case Details
Finally, Complainant contends that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith because: (i) bad faith exists where, as in the instant case, a respondent uses a domain name to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its websites; (ii) bad faith exists where, as in the instant case, a respondent uses a well-known trademark and there can be no question that respondent knew or should have known about complainant's trademark rights before registering its domain name; (iii) the practice of typosquatting of itself is evidence of bad registration of a domain name; (iv) Respondent is using the disputed domain names for commercial gain by advertising links to websites of unrelated third parties; (v) Respondent is responsible for the content of the websites located at the domain names; (vi) the registration and offer for sale of a domain name which is based upon another’s intellectual property show bad faith; and (v) Respondent has been the subject of numerous proceedings under the UDRP.
...The Panel concurs with previous UDRP decisions holding that registration of a well-known trademark as a domain name is a clear indication of bad faith in itself, even without considering other elements. See Veuve Cliquot Ponsardin, Maison Fondee en 1772 v. ...
2011-04-20 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered the Domain Name, in part, to sell the Domain Name to the Complainant or its competitors and refers to Société Nationale des Chemins de Fer Français, SNCF v. ...The Panel accepts that the Respondent registered the domain name, in part, to sell the Domain Name to Complainant or its competitors. In Société Nationale des Chemins de Fer Français, SNCF v. ...
2015-06-17 - Case Details
This is exactly what has been decided in various WIPO decisions and notably
in Louis Vuitton v. Net-Promotion, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0430, regarding the domain name and
in The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. v. ...Indeed, the disputed domain name features links to the official website of Intercontinental hotels.
In this regard, it has already been held (The Chip Merchant, Inc. v. ...
2005-01-03 - Case Details
Respondent's commercial activities undertaken through use of the disputed domain name are neither fair use nor bona fide under the Policy. Id.; see, e.g. America Online, Inc. v. ...Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0003.
The Panel infers that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in attempts to trade on the fame of Complainant's trademark, which was registered and used in the 1990s, and widely promoted before Respondent registered the disputed domain name. ...
2009-04-30 - Case Details
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. (Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii); Rules, paragraph 3(b)(ix)(2))
According to Croatia Airlines d.d. v. ...The website associated with the disputed domain name displays information regarding the sale of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name is on sale for an amount of USD 5,000.00
According to paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, to acquire the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant which is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name, is considered as a bad faith See Air Group v. ...
2011-04-27 - Case Details