Further, the Complainant’s registration and use of its trademarks for NILFISK predate the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name by several years.
The Respondent’s reasons for the registration of the disputed domain name must be considered to be use of the disputed domain name for attracting Internet users to the website under the disputed domain name for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website under the disputed domain name.
...The Respondent appears to have acquired the disputed domain name on March 14, 2015. The Complainant’s trademark, on the other hand, has been established prior to the registration of the disputed domain name.
...
2015-08-12 - Case Details
The Respondent is "TheBuzz Int." of Over Spangen, Skive, Denmark. It is not clear whether "TheBuzz Int." is the name of a firm, company or other business entity.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with "directNIC," the domain registration arm of Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. ...The Center verified that the Complaint, together with the amendment to the Complaint, satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"), 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").
...
2004-04-21 - Case Details
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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”).
...Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to divest a respondent of a domain name, a complainant must demonstrate each of the following:
(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2019-10-28 - Case Details
Respondent is David Ashby, an individual residing at 815 Covington Rd., Los Altos, California 94024, U.S.A. ("Ashby").
2. Domain Name and Registrar
The domain name in issue is "YAHOOVENTURES.COM". The registrar is Network Solutions, Inc. ...The Center verified that the complaint satisfies the formal requirements of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Policy), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Rules), and the Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Supplemental Rules). ...
2000-06-14 - Case Details
The Respondent is Lane Allen, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Name.com, Inc. ...One of the
identified domain names reflects the Respondent’s personal name and was registered in 2003, reasonably
close to the time when the disputed domain name was registered. ...
2023-12-18 - Case Details
The Respondent is Zhou Murong of Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with eName Technology Co., Ltd. ...Respondent
The Respondent is an individual resident in China.
C. The Disputed Domain Names
The disputed domain name was registered on August 18, 2013.
D. Passive Use of the Disputed Domain Name
The disputed domain name has not been used.
5. ...
2017-07-04 - Case Details
Johns, Antigua and Barbuda.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is . The Registrar of the subject domain name is Tucows, Inc., Ontario, Canada.
3. ...These include: the subject domain name incorporates completely the Complainant’s mark; it is used to divert custom from the Complainant; the Respondent is not known commonly by the subject domain name; there is no relationship between the parties by which the Respondent is authorized to use either the Complainant’s mark of the subject domain name.
...
2002-11-11 - Case Details
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”).
...It is generally accepted that the functional gTLD suffixes, such as “.org”, are irrelevant when assessing whether the Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the WHATSAPP Mark.
Section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 says that the inclusion of the entire trademark in a domain name will render it confusingly similar to the Disputed Domain Names. ...
2019-07-10 - Case Details
No communication has been received from the Respondent.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The domain name in dispute is "net2phone-europe.com" which is registered with Network Solutions Inc of 505 Huntmar Park Drive, Herndon, Virginia 20170, USA.
3. ...ii) The Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the domain name.
The Complainant submits that a domain name registrant lacks rights or a legitimate interest in a domain name where the owner of a mark has not licensed or otherwise permitted the registrant to apply for or use its mark. ...
2000-09-28 - Case Details
The Respondent is ITBOX Pty Ltd., of Gordon, New South Wales, Australia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is , registered with Enetica
Pty Ltd.
3. ...b) The Respondent is not an authorized distributor of SanDisk Corporation.
(c) The disputed domain name is not similar or in any way connected with the name under which the Respondent holds the domain name registration.
...
2007-02-12 - Case Details
The Respondents have argued that the Complainants' marks are not co-extensive with the disputed domain names in that the marks do not contain all the disputed domain name words such as "andgroom" and "magazine"(magazine). ...The Panel therefore finds the Respondents have shown that they have legitimate rights and interests in the disputed domain names under the Policy at 4 (c)(i): "before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services;"
The Panel deems it unnecessary to proceed to a discussion of bad faith since, under the Policy, the Complainants are required to prevail in each separate step of the Policy 4(a)(i-iii).
7. ...
2002-02-01 - Case Details
The Respondent is Sienna Coffee BN97979311, Australia, self-represented.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Web Address Registration Pty Ltd.
3. ...Kimberley Van Der Meulen (who remains the registered contact for the disputed domain name), was aware of the distinctive RANCILIO brand when the disputed domain name was registered in 2003.
...
2020-11-19 - Case Details
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”).
...The disputed domain name is identical with the TIDELANDS HEALTH trade mark but for the inclusion of the “www” prefix, which is a common element of any URL and typically not part of a domain name. ...
2021-06-16 - Case Details
Venture Development
(the “Respondent”), with designated address at Torre La Castellana,
Avenida Principal, Caracas, Venezuela.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The domain name under dispute is (the “Domain Name”).
...The Complaint was filed in accordance with the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”) adopted by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) on October 24, 1999, the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and WIPO’s Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). ...
2005-02-18 - Case Details
Ducon, address given as 123 Rue, Ville, CA 90210, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The Domain Name at issue is .
The Registrar of the Domain Name is Tucows, Inc., 96 Mowat Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M6K 3MI.
3. ...On the same day, Tucows confirmed that it was the Registrar of the Domain Name, and that the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy") applied to the Domain Name. ...
2002-07-11 - Case Details
Customer 7151571251, Contact Privacy Inc., Canada / Gulsher
Khan, Pakistan0 F
1.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Squarespace Domains II LLC
(the “Registrar”).
3. ...The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain
name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2024-02-21 - Case Details
The Respondent is Gorbatova Olga, Russian Federation.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Registrar of Domain Names REG.RU
LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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”).
...
2022-12-01 - Case Details
Respondent is Registration Private, Domains by Proxy, LLC of Scottsdale, Arizona, United States / Frank Gorman of Seaside Heights, New Jersey, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Complainant also urges that Respondent registered the Domain Name for the purpose of depriving Complainant of use of the Domain Name and its mark online, and benefiting financially from the sale of the Domain Name to Complainant in violation of Policy, paragraph 4(b).
...
2018-08-02 - Case Details
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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").
...Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the complainant must prove each of the following:
1) that the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and,
2) that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and,
3) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2016-11-21 - Case Details
page 2
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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”).
...The Complainant requests the consolidation of the Complaint against the multiple
disputed domain name registrants pursuant to paragraph 10(e) of the Rules.
The disputed domain name registrants did not comment on the Complainant’s request.
...
2024-02-02 - Case Details