In fact, given that one of the Complainant’s subsidiaries operates in Kenya under the name “Allianz Kenya”, the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the ALLIANZ trademark is increased, as it may suggest that the disputed domain name resolves to the official website of said subsidiary (see Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. ...Previous UDRP decisions have arrived at a finding that registering a domain name with knowledge of another company’s rights in the disputed domain name and with intention to divert traffic, may serve as evidence of bad faith registration (see Digital Spy Limited v. ...
2017-04-24 - Case Details
The panel in Microsoft Corporation v. Mike Rushton, WIPO
Case No. D2004-0123 stated that “use of the domain name to resolve
to a blank website is not a bona fide use.” The panel in Dorotheum
GmbH & Co KG v. Norbert Gartner, WIPO
Case No. D2005-0408 stated that “an inactive holding of a domain
name with a blank webpage also demonstrates bad faith use of a domain name under
the Policy.”
...
2006-08-30 - Case Details
Venturum GmbH v. Coventry Investments, Ltd, DomainCollection Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0405. The fact that the disputed domain name is offered for sale for $ 10,820 represent a clear violation of the Policy since this amount is far in excess with respect to the normal out-pocket expenses directly related to the registration of a domain name (see Mr. ...Whois ID Theft Protection c/o Domain Admin, NAF Case No.726075 (transfer of the domain name industrialproducts.com> to the Complainant) and Wind-lock Corporation v. ...
2008-05-28 - Case Details
A domain name registrant is not able to close its eyes to the manner in which its own domain name is being used and is nevertheless responsible for the acts of those such as PPC site operates (see e.g., Grundfos A/S v. ...On a proper reading of the Policy, all the Complainant need show is that the disputed domain name has been used in bad faith and there is no need to demonstrate registration of the disputed domain name in bad faith (see e.g., City Views Limited v. ...
2011-03-04 - Case Details
See, RapidShare AG, Christian Schmid v. InvisibleRegistration.com, Domain Admin,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1059.
Complainant states that the disputed domain name features the acronym “mena,” added to Complainant’s trademark VIVENDI. ...Other 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. ...
2011-04-07 - Case Details
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name
(Policy, Paragraph 4(a)(ii); Rules, Paragraph 3(b)(ix)(2))
According to Croatia Airlines d.d. v. ...Air Group v. Pat Reinhardt,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0482.
On those facts, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...
2011-04-20 - Case Details
E.g., Pfizer Inc. v. jg a/k/a Josh Green,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0784. Respondent’s commercial activities undertaken through use of the disputed domain name are neither fair use nor bona fide under the Policy. ...Moreover, under these circumstances, the Panel agrees that there is no conceivable good faith use for the disputed domain name by Respondent.3 See Cellular One Group v. Paul Brien,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0028; Telstra Corp., supra. ...
2008-07-15 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered the Domain Name, in part, to sell the Domain Name to the Complainant or its competitors and refers to Société Nationale des Chemins de Fer Français, SNCF v. ...The Panel accepts that the Respondent registered the domain name, in part, to sell the Domain Name to Complainant or its competitors. In Société Nationale des Chemins de Fer Français, SNCF v. ...
2015-06-17 - Case Details
Complainant further submits that Respondent is currently holding the disputed domain name passively. UDRP panels have consistently held that passive holding of domain names can be considered bad faith registration and use of the domain name (in particular, see Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...Accordingly, in the absence of any right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, the registration of the disputed domain name by Respondent and its subsequent use of it, cannot have been in good faith (see General Electric Company v. ...
2014-01-14 - Case Details
A prior UDRP administrative panel has determined that the ALLSTATE trademark is famous (Allstate Insurance Company v. Domain Supermarket,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1175).
2. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
...See also Microsoft Corporation v. Gioacchino Zerbo,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0644: “It may be inferred that the Respondent did register the domain name in dispute on purpose, to disrupt the Complainant’s business, as it used the domain name with sponsored links to competitors”.
9 See HSBC Finance Corporation v. ...
2011-04-21 - Case Details
D2012-0749 (June 4, 2012) and Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. jianxin ou aka jianxinou,
WIPO Case No. D2010-2022 (January 26, 2011).
The Complainant further states that previous UDRP panels have held that a domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark when the domain name incorporates the mark in its entirety. ...The Complainant states that the Respondent has never been known by the disputed domain name and has no legitimate interest in the SWAROVSKI trademark or the name “Swarovski”. See, Marriott Int’l, Inc. v. ...
2013-02-07 - Case Details
D2001-0505 -).
The disputed domain names wholly incorporate the word element “VINçOTTE” of Complainants’ figurative trademarks.
The assumption of confusing similarity between trademark and domain name is
not refuted by the fact that the Complainants’ trademarks contain additional
design elements such as logos or the stylized letters “V” and “AIB
AV” which can not be reproduced in a domain name (Toyota Motor Sales
USA v. ...It is also well established that the specific top
level of a domain name such as “.com”, “.org” or “.net”
does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is
identical or confusingly similar (See Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...
2005-09-09 - Case Details
Respondent’s commercial activities undertaken through use of the disputed domain name are neither fair use nor bona fide under the Policy. See, e.g., America Online, Inc. v. Xianfeng Fu,
WIPO Case No. ...Telstra Corp., supra, cited in Oxygen Media, LLC v. Primary Source,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0362.
The Panel infers that Respondent was aware of Complainant’s trademarks at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. ...
2008-06-26 - Case Details
This is especially so where the Complainant’s trademark is the sole distinctive portion of the domain name (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Brad Tauer,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1076).
In Sanofi-Aventis v. Conciergebrain.com,
WIPO Case No. ...The word “cheap” in the disputed domain name may also be considered descriptive. In Microsoft Corporation v. J. Holiday Co.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2007-11-27 - Case Details
ii) Khadi & Village Industries Commission v. Srinivas Balasani, WIPO Case No. D2021-1374, wherein the
panel, while judging the similarity between the domain name and trademark KHADI,
found that “the essential part of the disputed domain name is the KHADI mark. ...The Panel finds it useful to refer to the decision in the case of Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. v.
Voguechen, WIPO Case No. D2014-0657, holding that – “where a domain name incorporates the entirety of
a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name,
the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP
standing.”
...
2022-06-29 - Case Details
The relevant comparison to be made is with the second level portion of the Disputed Domain Name: “moleskine”.
It is also well established that where a domain name incorporates a complainant’s well-known and distinctive trademark in its entirety, it is confusingly similar to that mark: (see Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ...It is the Complainant’s position that it does, citing Recordati S.P.A. v. Domain Name Clearing Company,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0194 and Comerica Inc. v. Horoshiy, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2013-02-21 - Case Details
See American Automobile Association Inc. v. Texas International Property Associates,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0592 ( domain name confusingly similar to AAA marks for maps); American Automobile Association, Inc. v. ...D2004-0176. The mere selection of a triple A prefix for a domain name should not compel a conclusion that mischief is afoot. See, for example, American Automobile Association, Inc. v. ...
2009-04-09 - Case Details
See, e.g., Arkema France v. Steve Co., Stave Co Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2017-
1632.
Moreover, in finding a domain name used only for an email scam was bad faith, the panel in Kramer Law
Firm, P.A. ...See, e.g., Terex Corporation v. Williams Sid, Partners
Associate, WIPO Case No. D2014-1742 (“Respondent was using the disputed domain name in conjunction
with […] an email address for sending scam invitations of employment with Complainant”); and Olayan
Investments Company v. ...
2022-07-07 - Case Details
Ownership of a registered mark to which a disputed domain name is confusingly similar satisfies paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See Consorzio del Formaggio Parmigiano Reggiano v. ...See Yakka Pty Ltd. v. Mr. Paul Steinberg,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0502. No evidence suggests the Respondent has ever been called by any name incorporating the Mark or been commonly known by the Mark or the Domain Name. ...
2012-04-13 - Case Details
The Panel finds that it is not unlikely that Respondent
received PPC fees from the linked websites that were listed at the Domain Name’s website and used the
Domain Name for his own commercial gain. The use of a domain name to host a parked page comprising
PPC links does not represent a bona fide offering where such links compete with Complainant’s trademark
(Archer-Daniels-Midland Company v. ...This, in view of the finding that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, and
in the circumstances of the case, affirms the bad faith (Aygaz Anonim Sirketi v. Arthur Cain, WIPO Case No.
...
2023-06-19 - Case Details