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
Reference is made in particular to International Trademark Registration SAINT-GOBAIN No. 740183 registered on July 26, 2000 that predates the creation date of the disputed domain name, which is July 18, 2015.
Many Uniform Domain Name Resolution Policy (“UDRP”)1 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., Facebook, Inc. v. ...Almutasem Alshaikhissa,
WIPO Case No. D2014-2100; Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. Mustermann Max, Muster AG, supra).
The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. ...
2016-11-25 - Case Details
v) The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. ...See Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
As previously noted, the Respondent offered no reason for selecting the disputed domain name. ...
2019-01-25 - 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
The question is whether the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s CHUBB trademark are confusingly similar. As stated by the Panel in America Online, Inc v. ...D2000-0536, Denied.
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. Paul McCauley
WIPO Case No. D2004-0014, Denied.
Imposing further conditions as to domain name and use:
Covance, Inc. and Covance Laboratories Ltd. v. ...
2007-09-12 - Case Details
Domain Strategy, Inc., NAF Case No. FA113974 (finding respondent’s use of the disputed domain name for a pornographic website constituted bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy); General Electric Company v. ...Inc. v. Moldes Matrices y Diseno, NAF Case No. FA133764 (finding bad faith in respondent’s use of the disputed domain name for a pornographic website).
...
2008-03-14 - Case Details
On the contrary, as Complainant has demonstrated, the Domain Name leads to an inactive website. Passive holding of a domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services (Philip Morris USA v. ...As regards bad faith use, Complainant demonstrated that the Domain Name currently leads to an inactive website. The non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith (see Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2020-05-07 - 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. ...Thirdly, the Panel finds, similar to other UDRP panels, that the addition of the generic Top-Level-Domain (gTLD) ”.com” to the Disputed Domain Name does not constitute an element so as to avoid confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy (see, e.g., Volkswagen AG v. ...
2015-03-04 - Case Details
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
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
Similarly, the addition of the .com gTLD does not remove the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant's trademark. Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. Nadeem Qadir,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0003.
Complainant cites several decisions in which panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent adopted a domain name consisting of Complainant's CHANEL mark plus a generic word. Chanel, Inc. v. Estco Technology Group,
WIPO Case No. ...
2010-04-23 - 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
The Trademarks are protected under Dutch law.
It is established case law that the top level domain “.nl” may be disregarded in assessing the similarity between the relevant trademark or trade name on the one hand, and the domain name on the other hand (see: Taylor Made Golf Company, Inc. v. Lotom Group S.A.,
WIPO Case No. DNL2010-0067; Roompot Recreatie Beheer B.V. v. Edoco LTD,
WIPO Case No. DNL2008-0008).
Further, the only difference between the Domain Name and (the word element of) the Trademarks is the insertion in the center of the Domain Name of an extra “i”, which does not make any relevant difference (see also: XS4ALL Internet B.V. v. ...
2012-12-06 - Case Details
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. ...Furthermore, in the Panel’s view the use of a privacy/proxy service to avoid disclosing the name and contact details of the real party owner of the disputed domain name, is also consistent with an inference of bad faith in registering and using the disputed domain name, given the evidence in this case of evasive and irresponsible conduct and of the Respondent’s blatant exploitation of the Complainant’s mark and name for commercial gain (see Fifth Third Bancorp v. ...
2014-03-28 - Case Details
iv) The Complainant submits that by creating confusion with the Mark for commercial gain, the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
(v) The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to Siemens AG.
...See Weetabix Limited v. Mr. J. Clarke,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0775.
In this case, considering the facts that the disputed domain name resolved to a website containing sponsored links and that prior UDRP panels have found the Mark to be famous (see Siemens AG v. ...
2021-01-18 - Case Details
D2003-0598).
It is established case law that the top level domain “.nl” can be disregarded in assessing the similarity between the relevant trademark on the one hand, and the Domain Name on the other (Roompot Recreatie Beheer B.V. v. ...Respondent uses the Domain Name to attract Internet users through the likelihood of confusion which may arise with Complainants’ trademark (Société Air France v. ...
2011-03-25 - Case Details
See Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
As previously noted, the Respondent did not submit a formal Response, thus offering no reason for selecting the disputed domain name. ...In addition, the Panel notes that many UDRP panels have held that bad faith use of a domain name by a respondent may also result from the fact its good faith use is in no way plausible (see Audi AG v. ...
2014-04-10 - Case Details
Also, the addition of the suffix “.com” 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. ...As decided in LEGO Juris A/S v. Lothar Evers,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1711, “[t]he domain name registrants in these cases are presumed to earn revenues from click-throughs to advertisers listed on their websites. ...
2010-05-17 - Case Details
See, e.g., Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v. P.K. Gopan,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0171 (geographical name “adds nothing other than to signify a geographical location or limitation and would be regarded by virtually every person who saw the disputed domain name as an indication that it was the domain name of [the complainant] as utilized in [that location]”).
Moreover, panels disregard the domain name suffix in evaluating confusing similarity. E.g., VAT Holding AG v. VAT.com,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0607; Shangri-La International Hotel Management Limited v. ...
2009-09-14 - Case Details
Furthermore, it is obvious to the Panel that the Disputed Domain Name, is confusingly similar to the Complainant's Marks. (Sanofi v. Domain King,
WIPO Case No. D2015-1799; Kansai Plascon (PTY) Limited v. ...D2010-0551; Sanofi v. Domain King, supra).
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has not been given any permission to register or use any domain name incorporating the trade name of the Complainant. ...
2018-06-27 - Case Details