Various UDRP decisions have upheld the assertion that use of an entire trademark as part of the domain name will create a confusingly similar domain name. See Amanresorts Limited and Amanresorts International Pte Ltd v. ...The Panel also finds that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) in the disputed domain name has no legal significance, i.e. “.org”. See CBS Broadcasting Inc. v. ...
2016-04-26 - Case Details
The Respondent is Steve Mart of Lagos, Nigeria.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with OnlineNic, Inc. d/b/a China-Channel.com (the “Registrar”).
3. ...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”).
...
2012-11-05 - Case Details
Finally, the addition of the gTLD suffix “.com” is generally non-distinctive because it is required for the registration of the domain name. RX America, LLC v. Mattew Smith,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0540; Sanofi-Aventis v. US Online Pharmacies,
WIPO Case No. ...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel concurs with previous WIPO UDRP decisions holding that registration of a well-known trademark as a domain name may be an indication of bad faith in itself, even without considering other elements. See Pepsico, Inc. v. ...
2015-03-25 - Case Details
v) Finally, the Complainant contends that the Respondent acted in bad faith because the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name obviously exploits the fame and goodwill of the Mark.
...The addition of generic terms does not serve to distinguish a domain name from registered marks. See Banconsumer Service, Inc. v. Mary Langthorne, Financial Advisor,
WIPO Case No. ...
2013-04-09 - Case Details
It is well-established that the gTLD used as technical part of a domain name may be disregarded (see Autodesk v. MumbaiDomains,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0286). The relevant comparison to be made is with the second-level portion of the Disputed Domain Name, specifically: “putzmeisters”.
...On any objective view, the Respondent is not a reseller with a legitimate interest in a domain name incorporating a manufacturer’s mark, such that it could meet the tests set out in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ...
2020-09-18 - Case Details
The Complainant argues further that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the Complainant’s registered trademark GIMBORN and that the letters “h” and “v” have an inferior distinctive importance compared to Gimborn, the principle component of the disputed domain name. ...Furthermore, the Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant argues that the use of the company symbol “H v. ...
2015-08-06 - Case Details
Complainant further contends that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests regarding the disputed domain name because (i) Respondent is not affiliated or related to Complainant in any way, or licensed or otherwise authorized to use the trademark STATOIL in connection with a website or for any other purpose; (ii) Respondent is not generally known by the disputed domain name, and has not acquired any trademark or service mark rights in that name or mark; (iii) Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services; (iv) it can be assumed that Respondent's intention for registering the disputed domain name has been either to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant, or to use it otherwise for financial gain, as the disputed domain name currently holds no Internet content of Respondent; and (v) Complainant has strong reason for concern that the disputed domain name is or will be used for illegal activities.
...RX America, LLC. v. Matthew Smith, supra.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark STATOIL and, as a result, finds that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is met.
...
2014-05-12 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered to prevent the owner of the mark from using it. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has a history of registering domain names with trademarks belonging to others and has provided a list of these cases as evidence: Koc Holding A.S. v. ...Also see Thuisbezorgd.nl. B.V. and Takeaway.com B.V v. Heather Briggs,
WIPO Case No. DNL2015-0013, where it was found that the only difference between the domain name and the THUISBEZORGD trademark was the removal of the letter "g" and said domain name was found to be confusingly similar to the complainant's mark. ...
2015-11-09 - Case Details
Such minor alterations do not render the disputed domain name any less confusing for purposes of the confusing similarity analysis. See Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu v. ...Chris McCrady,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0429 (finding that the top level of the domain name, for example “.net”, does not affect the domain name for purposes of assessing whether the domain is confusingly similar); The Neiman Marcus Grp., Inc. v. ...
2014-01-17 - Case Details
It is well established that a respondent has a right to register and use a domain name to attract Internet traffic based solely on the appeal of a commonly used descriptive phrase, even where the domain name is confusingly similar to the registered mark of a complainant (see National Trust for Historic Preservation v. ...As stated above under Section 4, the Panel notes that the Respondent does not appear to use the Disputed Domain Name as of the date of this Decision. It is also well settled that inaction in the form of passive holding of a domain name registration can, in certain circumstances, constitute a domain name being used in bad faith (e.g.: Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2011-07-28 - Case Details
page 3
In many UDRP decisions, it is well established 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” (L’Oréal, Lancôme Parfums et
Beauté & Cie v. ...D2000-0113).
Finally, the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is not to be taken into consideration when examining
the identity or similarity between the Complainant’s trademarks and the disputed domain name (Accor v.
...
2026-07-09 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Abbott Laboratories v. Domain May Be For Sale, Check afternic.com Domain Admin, Whois protection, this company does not own this domain name s.r.o. / Hulmiho Ukolen, Poste restante
Case No. ...D2015-0586; American Woodmark Corporation v. Domain Admin, this company does not own this domain name s.r.o. / Hulmiho Ukolen, Poste restante,
WIPO Case No. ...
2018-01-03 - Case Details
v) The Complainant thus submits that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...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. ...
2015-02-05 - Case Details
D2005-0755 (in ordering transfer of domain name ); Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. credoNIC.com / DOMAIN FOR SALE,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0987 (in ordering transfer of domain name ; Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Midas Search Limited,
WIPO Case No. ...
2009-02-17 - Case Details
KG v. Pertshire Marketing Ltd,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0762).
The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the PAGESJAUNES mark in its entirety. ...The Panel considers this to be clear evidence of the Respondent using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith (see Hermes International, SCA v. cui zhenhua,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1743; Control Techniques Limited v. ...
2011-10-19 - Case Details
In similar cases, the panels have found that adding descriptive words does not avoid the likelihood of confusion between a trademark and a domain name incorporating said trademark. See e.g. Sanofi-Aventis v. Gideon Kimbrell,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1559; Greenbrier IA, Inc. v. ...See Parfums Christian Dior S.A. v. QTR Corp.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0023; (finding bad faith where WhoIs information included the phrase "this domain name is for sale"); Microsoft Corp. v. ...
2012-03-21 - Case Details
Therefore, the mere addition of the word “lastik” does not exclude the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark. See, inter alia, Barry D. Sears, Ph.D. v. YY / Yi Yanlin,
WIPO Case No. ...The Panel finds that, under the circumstances, the use of the disputed domain name merely for a pay-per-click page which directs visitors to various third party commercial websites does not constitute a legitimate, noncommercial use of the disputed domain name under the Policy, as found in Manheim Auctions Inc. v. ...
2011-03-15 - Case Details
Canadian Standards Association) v. John O. Shannon and Care Tech Industries, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0071).
This use of the domain name including a PPC mechanism for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers to Web sites of competitors of the Complainant cannot be deemed as fair, legitimate, or noncommercial (see Chanel, Inc. v. ...Hu Yifei,
WIPO Case No. DCO2017-0046, and Dr. Ludwig Manfred Jacob v. Whois Privacy Shield Services / Kohei Yamaguchi,
WIPO Case No. D2017-1975).
Additionally, the banner displayed on the Web site to which the disputed domain name resolves, which reads “DOMAIN SALE CLICK HERE TO BUY NOW…”, as well as the content of the Web site to which said banner redirects traffic, suggests that the Respondent acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling it to the Complainant or to a direct competitor of the Complainant, for a price consideration in excess of the documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name registration and maintenance.
...
2019-02-26 - Case Details
As held by the panel in Compagnie Genrale des Etablissements Michelin-Michelin & Cie. v. Tgifactory, “the fact that the Domain Name was registered under the fictitious name of a non-existing entity is a further indication that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith by the individual who purported to act under the name of TGIFACTORY. ...See, e.g., Research In Motion Limited v. International Domain Names Inc./Moniker Privacy Services,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0780. The gTLD “.com” cannot be used as an element of distinction between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s registered trademark.
...
2019-06-13 - Case Details
Henry Chan,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0218; Uniroyal Engineered Products, Inc. v. Nauga Network Services,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0503.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name, , is confusingly similar to Complainants’ COSTCO trademarks.
...This cannot be considered a bona fide offering of services by Respondents. See Sanrio Company Ltd v. Neric Lau,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0172 (interests in the domain name not legitimate where there is no authorized association with trademark owner); Telstra Corporation v. ...
2008-02-19 - Case Details