D2001-1033; Nokia Corp. v. Uday Lakhani, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0833. Nor does the addition of the “.com” suffix
serve to distinguish the Infringing Domain Name. ...See Edmunds.com, Inc. v. Ult. Search, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2001-1319; V&S Vin
& Sprit v. Young Nah, WIPO Case No.
D2004-0961 (“The domain name is hosted by a company called TrafficZ.com,
which is dedicated to generating revenue from parked domains while providing
accurate metrics of each domain. ...
2006-05-01 - Case Details
This Trademark registration predates the creation date of the disputed domain name, which is May 19, 2020.)
UDRP panels have found that a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark where the disputed domain name incorporates the complainant’s trademark in its entirety (e.g., Virgin Enterprises Limited v. ...The Panel finds it most likely that the Respondent selected the disputed domain name with the intention to take advantage of the Complainant’s reputation by registering a domain name fully containing the Complainant’s Trademark and trade name with the intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain (e.g.,KOC Holding A.S. v. ...
2020-11-11 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Stichting CORDAID v. Domain Name Proxy Service, Inc., Direct Privacy ID 97BEA
Case No. D2012-0108
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Stichting CORDAID of 's-Gravenhage, Netherlands represented by DLA Piper Nederland N.V., Netherlands.
...It is clear, however, that the respondent must be using the domain name not in the trademark sense but in the descriptive sense, to communicate some aspect of the services offered.”); Havanna S.A. v. ...
2012-03-28 - Case Details
D2008-1546; Burberry Limited v. Forum LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2006-1076.
Finally, the addition of the suffix “.com” is non-distinctive because it is required for the registration of the domain name. ...Champagne Lanson v. Development Services/MailPlanet.com Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0006 (pay per click landing page not legitimate where ads are keyed to the trademark value of the domain name); The Knot, Inc v. ...
2010-10-15 - Case Details
D2005-1249; Research in Motion Limited v. One Star Global LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0227 (“In most cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, then the domain name will for the purposes of the Policy be confusingly similar to that mark.”); Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...Adidas AG v. Zhifang Wu,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0032. Thus, the Panel finds that the use of the terms “-os” and “.mobi” in the Disputed Domain Name does not serve to distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from the Complainant’s OSRAM marks. ...
2015-02-27 - 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
See Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0009.
There is nothing in the record remotely suggesting that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, or that the Respondent is making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. ...See, e.g., First American Funds, Inc. v. Ult. Search, Inc,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1840. The Panel concludes
for the reasons discussed below that the Respondent registered and is using
the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...
2005-09-05 - Case Details
See e.g., EAuto, L.L.C. v. EAuto Parts,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0096; Komatsu Ltd. v. RKWeb Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0995. The mere addition of "fc" to "marlboro" does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant's trademark. ...Also the addition of the gTLD suffix ".net" to a disputed domain name does not avoid confusing similarity. See F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Macalve e-dominios S.A.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2015-12-15 - Case Details
Id., (citing De Agostini S.p.A. v. Marco Cialone,
WIPO Case No. DTV2002 -0005).
Complainant avers that Respondent has no registered trademarks or trade names corresponding to the disputed domain name . ...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, used and widely promoted by Complainant before Respondent registered the disputed domain name. ...
2011-11-28 - Case Details
Incorporation of
a trademark in its entirety is often sufficient to establish that a domain name
is identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark. Britannia
Building Society v. ...See, also, Bang & Olufsen America, Inc. v. BeoWorld.com,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0159 (March 29, 2001)(non-authorized
reseller of genuine B&O product allowed to retain the
domain name). ...
2005-02-25 - Case Details
D2006-1379; Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v. IKEA International Co. Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0965).
The disputed domain name was first registered on December 14, 2010. ...D2011-0176; Monster Worldwide, Inc., and Monster Worldwide Ireland Limited v. Monster Finance Limited,
WIPO Case No. DIE2009-0001).
Finally, it is also well established that the specific top level domain name is generally 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 (cf. ...
2011-08-09 - Case Details
Impersonating a complainant by using a disputed domain name as part of an email address in the furtherance of a fraudulent scheme constitutes prima facie evidence of no rights (TVS Motor Company Limited v. ...UDRP panels have held that this bad faith requirement is met by a domain name that, if ever put to use, would ultimately result in consumer confusion (CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. ...
2022-02-09 - Case Details
D2006-1224 (adding the word “limited” to a disputed domain name consisting of complainant’s trademark in its entirety “does nothing to alleviate the confusing similarity”); America Online, Inc. v. ...See, e.g., Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 (finding the respondent’s passive holding of the domain name constituted bad faith); Sony Kabushiki Kaisha (also trading as Sony Corporation) v. ...
2008-05-19 - Case Details
As was stated in Pharmacia & Upjohn Company v. Moreonline,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0134, the “mere registration[, or earlier registration of a domain name], does not establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name”. ...The Respondent’s use of the Domain Name for such purpose is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, see Robert Bosch GmbH v. ...
2011-04-15 - Case Details
Furthermore, as Complainant demonstrates, Respondent used the Domain Name for the purpose of a fraud scheme. The use of the Domain Name for an illegal activity such as constructing an email composition containing the Domain Name for deceiving purposes can never confer rights or legitimate interests on Respondent (L’Oréal v. ...Because the BTWN EXHIBITS mark had been widely used at the time of the Domain Name registration by Respondent, the Panel finds it more likely than not that Respondent had Complainant’s mark in mind when registering the Domain Name (Tudor Games, Inc. v. ...
2020-02-28 - Case Details
The Respondent is Value-Domain com, Value Domain of Osaka-shi, Osaka, Japan.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The Disputed Domain Name is registered with eNom (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
...
2013-05-06 - 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
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
However, the passage in
question was ‘lifted’ from Caledonia Motor Group Limited v. Amizon
WIPO Case No. D2001-0860. In Caledonia
Motor Group Limited v. Amizon WIPO Case
No. D2001-0860, it formed part of a longer passage which paints a very different
picture:
“The Complainant has also submitted that the use of the Domain Name to divert users to a pornographic website is evidence that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith. ...In America Online
Inc. v. East Coast Exotics WIPO Case No.
D2001-0661 () the following passage appears:
“Registration of a domain name incorporating another’s mark and
use of that domain name for a pornographic website has been widely held to be
registration and use in bad faith. ...
2004-11-18 - Case Details
See also The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs v. Name Redacted,
WIPO Case No. D2017-0501 (“In addition, the disputed domain names […] have had their web hosting suspended as a result of fraudulent activities. ...Finally, the use of false registration data in connection with a disputed domain name further supports a finding of bad faith registration and use in this Complaint. See, e.g., Action Instruments, Inc. v. ...
2021-08-27 - Case Details