In light of the above, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark, through the use of the disputed domain name (see Alpine Entertainment Group, Inc. v. ...At the time of registration of the disputed domain name, the Respondent had constructive notice of registration No. 3000764 for VEOLIA. This conduct constitutes bad faith (see eBay Inc. v. ...
2017-09-25 - 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.") ...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. ...
2018-09-05 - Case Details
The Panel concludes that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith. As per Complaint, Complainant’s ZANUSSI trademark is wellknown for appliances (see also AB Electrolux v. ...Because the ZANUSSI mark had been widely used and registered 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 (Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. ...
2019-10-28 - Case Details
An individual may be entitled to a common law trademark or service mark without registering the mark with the appropriate authority. See, Steven Rattner v. BuyThis Domain Name, (WIPO D2000-0402); Jeanette Winterson v. Mark Hogarth, (WIPO D2000-0235); Julia Fiona Roberts v. ...Id. at 10.15. See also, Mondich v. Brown, WIPO Case No. D00-0004 (February 16, 2000) (bad faith evidenced by "failure for a substantial period of time to make good faith use of the domain name for [respondent's] business");
In the present case, the Domain Name was registered on February 16, 2000. ...
2001-01-31 - Case Details
D2011-1752; Statoil ASA. v. STNG,
WIPO Case No. D2013-2113).
The Complainant also argues that the Respondent is not known under the disputed domain name and is not authorized by the Complainant to use the disputed domain name.
...The disputed domain name is currently not in use. UDRP panels have long found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding (see Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2018-05-30 - Case Details
It is well established that when a domain name incorporates a registered trademark,
with the addition of a descriptive term, this is sufficient to establish that
the domain name is identical or confusingly similar for the purposes of the
Policy (Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...It is important to remember that the Complainant must clearly show that: (a)
the domain name was registered by the Respondent in bad faith and, (b) the domain
name has been used by the Respondent in bad faith (Robert Ellenbogen v. ...
2007-03-22 - Case Details
The Respondent has not contested the Complainant’s statements and evidence arguing illegitimate, commercial use of the disputed domain name.
Panels acting under the Policy have held that registration
of a domain name incorporating another’s famous mark does not confer any
rights or legitimate interests in the domain name to the Respondent, but rather
indicates bad faith under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy (see Telstra Corporation
Limited v. ...The Respondent has not rebutted Complainant’s allegations or evidence stating that the disputed domain name resolves to a site where unauthorized and/or counterfeit PRADA products are offered.
Following Prada S.A. v. ...
2007-01-16 - Case Details
UDRP Panels in Novell, Inc. v. Kim, NAF Claim No. 167964 and Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Ling Shun Shing, NAF Claim No. 206399, found that adding terms to a mark in the domain name that are directly related to complainant’s business does not go far enough to distinguish the domain name from the mark. ...See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, NAF Claim No. 139720 (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also Reese v. ...
2012-02-17 - Case Details
The same reasoning was adopted in VRL International Ltd. v. Domaincar,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0240 where the deletion of letter “s” in domain name was found not to alter the confusing similarity between the domain name and complainant's marks SUPERCLUBS BREEZES, in Hershey Foods Corporation and Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery Corporation v. ...D2003-0841 where the deletion of the letter “s” in domain name was found to be confusingly similar to complainant's domain name; and in Pop Smear, Inc. v. ...
2009-09-30 - Case Details
The
Complainant refers in this context to Zions Bancorporation v. Domain Administrator, Fundacion Private Whois,
WIPO Case No. D2014-0465.
The Complainant argues further that another indication of lack of rights and legitimate interest in the disputed
domain name is the subsequent passively hold of the disputed domain name and refers to Euromarket Designs,
Inc. v. ...Furthermore, the “.com” Top-Level Domain suffix in the disputed domain name does not affect the determination
that the disputed domain name is identical to the AXA trademark in which the Complainant has rights (see also
Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. ...
2024-05-29 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that although the Respondent had registered the impugned
domain name in March 8, 1999, he has not activated a website under the said
name. In Telstra Corporation Ltd. v. ...D2000-0487); Recordati S.P.A. v. Domain Name Clearing Company
(WIPO Case No. D2000-0194) and Revlon
Consumer Products Corporation v. ...
2001-08-17 - Case Details
The Respondent has not submitted any evidence to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, and the Complainant has made a prima facie showing that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy (see Société des Bains de Mer et du Cercle des Etrangers à Monaco v. ...Only someone who was familiar with the Complainant's marks would have registered such a confusingly similar Domain Name (see Aventis, Aventis Pharma SA. v. John Smith,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0850; AT&T Corp. v. Xinzhiyuan Management Consulting Co., Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2009-05-20 - Case Details
Because the ALDI mark
had been used and registered at the time of the Domain Name registrations by Respondent, the Panel finds
that Respondent had Complainant’s mark in mind when registering the Domain Name (Tudor Games, Inc. v.
...D2014-1754; Parfums Christian Dior v. Javier Garcia
Quintas and Christiandior.net, WIPO Case No. D2000-0226).
As regards bad faith use, the Domain Name redirects to third party sites. ...
2023-02-14 - Case Details
The Panel believes that people viewing the disputed domain name without awareness of its content may think that the domain name is in some way connected and associated with the Complainants: this situation is known as “initial interest confusion” (see Covance, Inc. and Covance Laboratories Ltd v. ...D2002-0109, InterContinental Hotels Group v. Dennis Stewart,
WIPO Case No. DSC2008-0001 in which the contested domain name redirects to the Complainant's official web-site).
...
2009-06-09 - Case Details
See Compagnie Générale
des Etablissements Michelin v. Shuitu Chen, WIPO Case No. D2016-1924; Compagnie Générale des
Etablissements Michelin v. Isaac Goldstein, Hulmiho Ukolen, Poste restante/Domain Admin, Whois
protection, this complany does not own this domain name s.r.o., WIPO Case No. ...The absence of evidence of the
Respondent’s good faith use of the disputed domain name, also carries an inference, although not a
determination, of bad faith use. See Alstom, Bouygues v. ...
2022-11-03 - 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
Roust Trading Limited v. AMG LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1857. In this case, the Panel has found that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...See also to similar effect The Hebrew University of Jerusalem v. Alberta Hot Rods,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0616.
For the reasons stated above, the Panel is satisfied that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith. ...
2008-10-16 - Case Details
Even in the absence of a
fee paid by Respondent’s use of Complainant’s Mark to divert
users from the Disputed Domain Name to cannot constitute a
legitimate use of the Disputed Domain Name. (See Chanel, Inc. v. ...Playboy Enterprises International,
Inc. v. Hector Rodriguez.
The Panel finds that Complainant has proved that the Disputed Domain Name
is confusingly similar to Complainant’s Mark under Paragraph 4(a)(i) of
the Uniform Policy.
...
2002-06-17 - 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”).
...The Panel agrees that 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; and Ronson Plc v. ...
2023-08-07 - Case Details
It is important to note that the mere registration of a domain name does not give rise to a "legitimate interest" (see, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Jason Barnes,
WIPO Case No. ...Martens International Trading GmbH, Dr. Maertens Marketing GmbH v. Above.com Domain Privacy/Transure Enterprise Ltd,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1253). Therefore, it is the view of this Panel that the Respondent knew or should have known that the disputed domain name included the Complainants' DR. ...
2018-04-06 - Case Details