D2000-1449 (the domain name differs from the mark merely by the addition of the letter "l" in the domain name, and such addition does not prevent the domain name from being considered virtually identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark); Alta Vista Co. v. ...There is no evidence indicating that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or the name "Wikipedia" (see for a similar finding ALDI GmbH & Co. KG v. zhou xiaolei,
WIPO Case No. ...
2016-09-14 - Case Details
D2005-1160 (domain
name transferred); Amanresorts Limited v. WWW Enterprise
Inc., WIPO Case No. ...WWW Enterprise, Inc., FA411803 (Natl.
Arb Forum March 21, 2005) (domain name transferred):
Air Austral v. WWW Enterprise, Inc., WIPO
Case No. D2004-0765 (domain name transferred). ...
2007-02-08 - Case Details
The addition of the number “2” does not prevent a
finding of confusing similarity between the Complainant’s BVLGARI mark and the disputed domain name.
(Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Rojeen Rayaneh, WIPO Case No. D2004-0488 and particularly Carvana,
LLC v. .../ Fundacion Comercio Electronico, Carolina Rodrigues, WIPO Case No.
D2022-1099).
The generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.vip” featured in the disputed domain name is viewed as a standard
registration requirement and not an element that generally would be taken into consideration when
evaluating the identity and similarity of the Complainant’s trademark and the domain name (Magnum Piering,
Inc. v. ...
2024-05-22 - 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
The Respondent is Cybernet Marketing/Antoine Tardif, of Alberta, Canada.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with OnlineNic, Inc. d/b/a China-Channel.com.
3. ...Saban Mihailovic, WIPO Case No. D2005-0356 - ; Lilly ICOS LLC v. Redzone, WIPO Case No. D2005-0534 - ).
Furthermore, it is also well established that the specific top level domain is not an element of distinctiveness that can be taken into consideration when evaluating the identity and similarity of the Complainant’s trademark and the domain name (cf. ...
2006-11-21 - Case Details
See Moana Pacific Fisheries Limited v. Turner New Zealand,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0139 (finding that respondent’s use of the domain name, which was confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark only to host a website that competed with complainant did not demonstrate respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the domain name); see also Ticketmaster Corporation v. ...It is reasonable to infer, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and thus lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. ...
2016-02-25 - Case Details
D2010-0138, Pharmacia & Upjohn Company v. Moreonline,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0134: “the mere registration, or earlier registration, does not establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name”, and Amanresorts Limited v. ...That alone amounts to bad faith.”; B&H Foto & Electronics Corp. v. Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc./Jackie Upton,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0841: “finding the disputed domain name was both registered and used in bad faith when the disputed domain name was used in a fraud scheme to send email orders immediately following registration to vendors that would appear to come from complainant, using the names of complainant’s employees and an email domain name differing by only two letters from complainant’s domain name”; OLX, Inc. v. ...
2021-07-07 - Case Details
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. ...See Baccarat SA v. Web Domain Names,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0038. (“The disputed domain name links to a web-site that includes links to other commercial web-sites. ...
2008-09-23 - Case Details
Amphenol Corporation v. Applied Interconnect, Inc,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0296, internal citations omitted).
Since the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name with the clear intention to use the Complainant’s marks and name for its own profit, misleading Internet users to commercial web sites by seeking to create an impression of association with the Complainant (see Drexel University v. ...As the Panel has found that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, in line with other prior UDRP decisions (Banca Sella s.p.a. v. Mr. Paolo Parente,
WIPO Case No. ...
2014-05-21 - Case Details
As a result, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark. See, ICICI Bank Limited v. Domain Dmin, Transfer Discounter,
WIPO Case No. ...See, Equinor ASA v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Iuzza Kucz,
WIPO Case No. D2021-0096 (“The Panel observes that the Disputed Domain Name redirects to the Complainant’s website. ...
2021-03-19 - 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
D2004-0388)
The addition of the gTLD “.com” to the disputed domain name constitutes a technical requirement of the
Domain Name System (“DNS”). Thus, it has no legal significance in assessing identity or confusing similarity
in the present case (see CARACOLITO S SAS v. ...D2016-0385). The use of a domain name for illegal purposes, such as fraud or phishing
activities, also constitutes bad faith under the Policy (see Banque Palatine v. ...
2025-06-11 - Case Details
Previous Panels under the
Policy have found that use of one of Complainant’s HOLIDAY INN trademarks
in its entirety plus a geographic term in a domain name creates a domain name
that is confusingly similar to the HOLIDAY INN trademark. See, e.g., Six
Continents Hotels, Inc. v. ...This increases the likelihood of consumer
confusion.”); Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. credoNIC.com / DOMAIN
FOR SALE, WIPO Case No. D2004-0987
(in ordering transfer of domain name , Panel
said: “there is sufficient precedent for finding that the addition of
a geographic term or name to a distinctive mark suggests that the domain name
is the domain name of Complainant in that particular location”); Six
Continents Hotels, Inc. v. ...
2007-04-18 - Case Details
D2001-1447; Sydney Markets Limited v. Nick Rakis trading as Shell Information Systems,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0932).
Secondly, the additional words “alert” and “information” in the disputed domain name are merely generic. ...Domain Park Limited, NAF Claim No. 1053504).
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 (see Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...
2011-07-04 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Abbott Laboratories v. Domain May Be For Sale, Check afternic.com Domain Admin, Whois protection, this company does not own this domain name s.r.o. / Hulmiho Ukolen, Poste restante
Case No. ...D2015-0586; American Woodmark Corporation v. Domain Admin, this company does not own this domain name s.r.o. / Hulmiho Ukolen, Poste restante,
WIPO Case No. ...
2018-01-03 - Case Details
The first Domain Name incorporates the said trademarks of Complainant in their entirety. This is sufficient to establish confusing similarity (Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...The second Domain Name incorporates the said trademarks of Complainant in their entirety. This is sufficient to establish confusing similarity (Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...
2018-11-23 - Case Details
Therefore, the Complainant holds the view that the Respondent cannot deny that the registration and the use of the domain name simply refers to Ville de Paris.
Furthermore, the Complainant informs the Panel that the Respondent has been subject of similar proceedings relative to abusive domain names registration such as: Cortefiel, S.A. v. ...As held in Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0429 “the specific top level of the domain name such as ‘.net’ or ‘.com’ does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar”, and in Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B. v. ...
2008-03-26 - Case Details
Inter-IKEA Systems B.V. v. Evezon Co. Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0437. The addition of the characters “ukgroup” to Complainant’s RBS trademark does not prevent the disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark. ...As already mentioned, the Panel finds that it is likely that Respondent was aware of Complainant and its business when Respondent registered the disputed domain name, which evidences bad faith on Respondent’s part. See PepsiCo, Inc. v. “null”, aka Alexander Zhavoronkov,
WIPO Case No. ...
2012-11-09 - 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. ...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. ...
2020-11-06 - Case Details
As decided in other WIPO UDRP cases, “the test of identity or confusing similarity under the Policy is confined to a comparison of the disputed domain name and the trademark alone”. LEGO Juris A/S v. Name Administrator, Hong Kong Domains, LLC., supra. ...Also, the addition of the suffix “.info” is non-distinctive because it is required for the registration of the domain name. Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1525; Rollerblade, Inc. v. ...
2010-05-27 - Case Details