Revlon Consumer Products Corporation v. lONE Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1000.
The addition of ”.net” suffix to the disputed domain name is non-distinctive because it is a generic top-level domain (gTLD) designation for registration of a domain name and does not avoid likelihood of confusion. ...Accordingly, the Respondent has no rights with respect to the disputed domain name, which was registered and is being used in bad faith. See, e.g., Revlon Consumer Products Corporation v. ...
2011-09-09 - Case Details
As stated in many decisions adopted under the Policy (Robert Ellenbogen v. Mike Pearson,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0001) both conditions, registered and use in bad faith, are cumulative, consequently, Complainant must show that:
- the domain name was registered by the Respondent in bad faith and,
- the domain name is being used by the Respondent in bad faith.
...With regard to the LEGO trademark previous Panelists moreover have asserted that: “Given the world-wide fame of Lego, it seems clear that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and at least the goodwill in the name Lego (and perhaps also the Lego trademark), when it registered the Domain Name” (LEGO Juris A/S v. ...
2010-01-04 - Case Details
Belupo d.d. v. WACHEM d.o.o.,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0110. The Respondent thereafter has to demonstrate his rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name under paragraph 4 (c) of the Policy. ...Prior UDRP panels have held that such failure to use a domain name in a bona fide manner may constitute bad faith. Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,
WIPO Case No. ...
2008-12-24 - 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
It is established that, where a mark is the distinctive part of a domain name, the domain name is considered to be confusingly similar to the registered mark (DHL Operations B.V. v. ...It is also established that the addition of a generic term to the disputed domain name has little, if any, effect on a determination of legal identity between the domain name and the mark (Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. ...
2009-08-21 - 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
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
Likewise, in Deutsche Post AG v. MailMij LLC, WIPO
Case No. D2003-0128, where the present Complainant was arguing on that occasion
that it was the domain name that was identical to the
trademark ‘Deutsche Post’, it was correctly held that this was so,
as the words in the domain name were clearly the same as those in the trademark.
...Likewise, in United States Postal Service v. Postoffice.com, Inc. File No. FA0012000096313 (NAF March 19, 2001), a panel refused to transfer to the United States Postal Service the domain name on the grounds that the respondent was providing an email service to customers and that this was a legitimate use of the domain name.
...
2006-03-16 - Case Details
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. ...Such activity does not provide a legitimate interest in that domain name under the Policy. See M.F.H. Fejlesztõ Korlátolt Felelõsségû v. Satoshi Shimoshita,
WIPO Case No. ...
2015-10-21 - Case Details
The Respondent’s actions in impersonating the Complainant are clear evidence of bad faith registration and use of the domain name. In this regard, the Complainant refers to the decision in Comerica Inc. v. Horoshiy, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. ...See Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1525.
In the present case, the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s well-known and well-established registered trademarks CHEYNE CAPITAL and CHEYNE. ...
2012-01-06 - Case Details
The Panel notes that use of privacy services to mask the identity of domain name registrants is becoming common in the recent past and in such cases it is usual for the Center to confirm who the true owner underlying the registrant is with the Registrar of the disputed domain name (See Xtraplus Corporation v. Flawless Computers,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0070; Mrs. Eva Padberg v. Eurobox Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1886). The Panel further notes that the Registrar has identified “Transure Enterprise Ltd” as the registrant of the disputed domain name and that “Above.com Domain Privacy” is simply a privacy name registration service. ...
2012-04-20 - 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
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
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
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
There have been cases where the way in which the domain name has been used has informed the panel when considering whether the test of confusing similarity is satisfied (see, for example, RapidShare AG and Christian Schmid v. majeed randi,
WIPO Case No. ...None appears to be asserted and presumably the Respondent will have the difficulty of having to deal with the decision of the English High Court in Toth v. Emirates [2013] EWHC 517.
6.15 There is also in the opinion of the Panel an even greater problem with the Respondent’s contention that it has a legitimate interest in the Domain Name because the proposed use of the Domain Name is said to be lawful. ...
2014-12-01 - 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
Buydomains.com, Inventory Management,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1950; Archer-Daniels-Midland Company v. Wang De Bing,
WIPO Case No. D2017-0363). Also it has been well established that use of a domain name to spread malware or viruses to Internet users is not a legitimate use of a domain name (see Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. v. ...Further, the disputed domain name resolves to a website offering the domain name for sale. It is well established that seeking to profit from the sale of a confusingly similar domain name that incorporates a third party’s trademark demonstrates bad faith (see Bryant Tyson v. ...
2017-11-29 - 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
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