See Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. 2220 Internet Coordinator,
WIPO Case No. D2005-1184(“Combining the two trademarks in the disputed domain name does not serve to distinguish the domain name from the Complainant’s trademarks.”); see also Société des Produits Nestlé SA v. ...Such use of a domain name to generate revenue is, by its very definition, a commercial use of a domain name. See, e.g., Mubadala Trade Marks Holding Company - LLC & Mubadala Investment Company PJSC v. ...
2018-11-21 - Case Details
The addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” to the disputed domain name is without legal significance for the purpose of assessing confusing similarity (see SAP SE v. ...WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Citizen Global Cargo,
WIPO Case No. D2018-0398; Haas Food Equipment GmbH v. Usman ABD, Usmandel,
WIPO Case No. D2015-0285).
Furthermore, it is well established that the practice of typosquatting constitutes evidence of bad faith registration of a domain name (see, Lexar Media, Inc. v. ...
2019-06-20 - Case Details
Domain
Names 4U and Fred Gray, WIPO Case No.
D2000-1403).
Registration of an ordinary word as a domain name,
and use of that domain name for an ordinary, non-trademark significance, can
be a legitimate interest (citing Thrifty, Inc. and Thrifty Rent-A-Car System,
Inc. v. ...Given the inherent non-distinctiveness of the name,
it was open to anyone to register the disputed domain name (and cites Deanna
S.p.A. v. Worldwide Media Inc., WIPO Case
No. ...
2004-11-09 - Case Details
As regards bad faith use, Complainant demonstrated that the Domain Name led at the time of filing of the Complaint to an inactive website. The non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith (Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...This is a clear indication that the Domain Name is being used in bad faith (Pfizer Inc. v. jg a/k/a Josh Green,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0784; F. ...
2019-10-03 - Case Details
See, e.g., Panavision Int’l, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1327 (9th Cir. 1998) ("A customer who is unsure about a company’s domain name will often guess that the domain name is also the company’s name. . . . ...FA 0093634 (February 8,
2000) (offering to sell an infringing domain name for $8,875 is evidence of
bad faith); Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corp., WIPO
Case No. ...
2002-02-25 - Case Details
A mere registration of a domain name does not give the owner a right or a legitimate interest in the domain name itself (Terroni Inc. v. ...That registration of a well-known trademark as a domain name is a clear indication of bad faith (Faconnable SAS v. Names4sale, supra; The Gap, Inc. v. Deng Youqian, supra. ...
2016-12-22 - Case Details
Complainant also notes that it has prevailed in many domain name disputes where domain names have incorporated the AMBIEN trademark, including Sanofi-aventis v. ...Similarly, the addition of “.com” at the end of the domain name also does not remove the confusing similarity between Respondent's domain name and Complainant's trademark; United Consumers Club, Inc. v. ...
2008-12-05 - Case Details
The domain name is identical
to the Complainant’s mark BRONX ART ENSEMBLE. See Pharmacia & Upjohn
AB v. Dario H. ...D2000-1633 and Ellerman Investments
Limited and The Ritz Hotel Casino Limited v. Antonios Manessis (trading as .com
and manessis.com), WIPO Case No.
D2001-1461. The Respondent did not choose to
register the domain name by accident. ...
2004-09-14 - Case Details
Privacy Locked LLC/Nat Collicot
WIPO Case No. D2009-0320; The Gap, Inc. v. Deng Youqian
WIPO Case No. D2009-0113). It is implausible that Respondent was unaware of Complainant when he registered the disputed domain name.
...Finally, it is likely that Respondent registered the domain name to prevent Complainant from using their trademarks in the disputed domain name. According to former panel, this type of conduct constitutes evidence of Respondent’s bad faith (L’oreal v. ...
2019-11-28 - Case Details
See Moncler S.p.A. v. Bestinfo,
WIPO Case No. D2004-1049 (“the Panel notes that the Respondent’s name is “Bestinfo” and that it can therefore not be “commonly known by the Domain Name.”)
...Therefore, the Domain Name is used for commercial purposes and paragraph 4(c)(iii) is not applicable. See Overstock.com, Inc. v. ...
2018-12-26 - Case Details
Weber-Stephen Products Co. v. Armitage Hardware,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0187. See Final Report of the WIPO Internet Domain Name Process, paragraphs 169 and 170.
...The critical inquiry under the first element of the Policy is whether the mark and domain name, when directly compared, are identical or confusingly similar. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2009-07-02 - Case Details
Paraphrasing AT&T Corp. v. Global Net 2000, Inc., WIPO
Case No. D2000-1447 (December 23, 2000), this Panel finds
that but for the addition of a dash to the contested domain name, said domain
name would be identical to Complainant's trademark PARAGONGIFTS.COM. ...See Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. Scott A. Smithberger and Quixtar-IBO,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0138 (April 19, 2000)
([b]ecause the domain name incorporates in its entirety this distinctive mark,
the Panel finds that the domain name quixtar-sign-up.com is confusingly similar
to the mark QUIXTAR); GA Modefine S.A. v. ...
2004-04-27 - Case Details
Co. v. R & S Technologies, Inc., NAF Claim No. 96577 (finding that respondent’s commercial use of the domain name to confuse and divert Internet traffic is not a legitimate use of the domain name).
...See, Dr. Karl Albrecht v. Eric Natale NAF Claim No. 95465 (The respondent intentionally registered a domain name that uses the complainant’s name. ...
2011-12-20 - Case Details
Accordingly,
the jurisdiction of this Panel is limited to providing a remedy in cases of
“the abusive registration of domain names”. Weber-Stephen Products
Co. v. Armitage Hardware, WIPO Case No. D2000-0187.
See Report of the WIPO Internet Domain Name Process, Paragraphs 169
& 170. ...D2000-0869 (domains of complaint sites suggested typosquatting,
there was evidence of actual confusion, and respondent reserved other domain
names incorporating famous marks); Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0429 (respondent’s noncommercial use of domain name
pre-textual where respondent made “overtures to be bought off” in
order to transfer domain name).
...
2005-02-11 - Case Details
UDRP 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. ...D2000-1525, holding that confusing similarity under the Policy is decided upon the inclusion of a trademark in the domain name; and Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0429, finding that the 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).
...
2011-03-08 - Case Details
The registration of the disputed domain name prevents the Complainant from reflecting its trademarks in a corresponding domain name. The infringing website “www.furla.club” reproduces the FURLA trademarks (Annex 15 to the Complaint) and that such activity constitutes evidence of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name (L’Oréal, Biotherm Lancome Parfums et Beauté & Cle v. Unasi, Inc., Supra; McDonald´s Corporation v. ZusCoin, Supra). The Complainant’s trademarks are well known worldwide and the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the registered trademarks of the Complainant (Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. ...
2016-02-09 - Case Details
On the contrary, it merely suggests to Internet users that the disputed domain name offers for sale the Complainant’s products (Oki Data Americas Inc v. ASD Inc.,
WIPO Case No. ...The mere registration of the disputed domain name may not of itself confer rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name (Terroni Inc. v. ...
2014-02-26 - Case Details
D2013-1583).
(ii) The domain name is a coined name which is neither descriptive nor generic and solely used to designate the complainant’s business (Statoil ASA v. ...Aaron Hall, supra; Statoil ASA v. Daniel MacIntyre, Ethical Island, supra).
(iv) The respondent has failed to explain as to why the domain name was chosen (Jupiters Limited v. ...
2016-11-25 - Case Details
See, Ansell Healthcare Products Inc. v. Australian Therapeutics Supplies Ply, Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0110 ("The incorporation of a Complainant's well-known trademark in the registered domain name is considered sufficient to find the domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark") and Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. ...The Respondent has never been known by the Domain Name and has no legitimate interest in the SWAROVSKI Marks or the name "Swarovski". See, Marriott Int'l, Inc. v. ...
2012-03-06 - Case Details
As the Panel noted in Kis v. Anything.com, WIPO
Case No D2000-0770, “The Domain Name at issue here is a three-letter
second-level domain within the popular “.com” top-level domain.
...NAF Case No. 94355, in a case relating to the domain name ,
- the Kis v. Anything.com Ltd., WIPO
Case No. D2000-0770, in a case relating to the domain name ,
- the Trans Continental Records, Inc. v. ...
2004-08-18 - Case Details