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
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
The fact that the word mark SUPA QUICK has been entirely incorporated into the disputed domain name is
sufficient to establish that it is identical to the Complainant’s registered trademark, since the space between
“supa” and “quick” cannot be reflected in a disputed domain name (Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. ...case=D2011-2069
page 7
Moreover, there is no evidence that the Respondents are commonly known by that disputed domain name or
otherwise have rights in the disputed domain name (Abbott Laboratories v. Li Jian Fu, Li Jian Fu, WIPO
Case No. ...
2023-06-06 - 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
Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Rojeen Rayaneh,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0488).
The addition of a gTLD such as “.com” after a domain name is technically required. ...Belupo d.d. v. WACHEM d.o.o ,supra. Once the complainant makes a prima facie case, the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name shifts to the respondent. ...
2017-05-17 - Case Details
The critical inquiry under the first element is whether the mark and domain name, when directly compared, have confusing similarity. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale,
WIPO Case No. ...See City Views Limited v. Moniker Privacy Services/Xander, Jeduyu, ALGEBRALIVE, supra. The Respondent registered a domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark, in which the Complainant had established prior rights. ...
2009-08-31 - Case Details
D2000-0429; Phenomedia AG v. Meta Verzeichnis Com,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0374).
Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's NEUSCHWANSTEIN Marks and that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...Freistaat Bayern v. Michael Kutzer,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0839). It is hardly conceivable that the Respondent, located in Germany, registered the disputed domain name consisting of the famous name of a German castle (a name invented more than a century ago) and the German word for “castle” without knowledge of the Complainant's rights in the NEUSCHWANSTEIN Marks. ...
2009-07-30 - 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
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
An earlier UDRP panel decision (PepsiCo, Inc. v. Paul J. Swider,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0561) held that the registration, without authorization of a domain name that is identical to a complainant’s famous mark is evidence of bad faith, and that the knowledge of marks at the time of registration of the domain name suggests bad faith.
...Moreover, the Respondent appears to have been involved in many domain name disputes, in which the panel ordered that the disputed domain names be transferred to the complainants: The Body Shop International PLC v. ...
2012-10-03 - Case Details
It is established that, where a mark is the distinctive part of a disputed domain name, the disputed domain name is considered to be confusingly similar to the registered mark (DHL Operations B.V. v. ...See, e.g., Tetra Laval Holdings & Finance S.A. v. Himali Hewage,
WIPO Case No. D2020-0472 (concluding that evidence of active MX records indicated that the disputed domain name may be used for fraudulent email communications); Ares Management LLC v. juandaohanjing,
WIPO Case No.D2020-3254 (finding the respondent used the disputed domain name in bad faith based on evidence of active “MX records for the disputed domain name” which “indicate that the Respondent has connected the disputed domain name to email servers, which creates a grave risk that the Respondent may be using the disputed domain name for misrepresentations and/or phishing and spamming activities”.)
...
2021-09-17 - Case Details
Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. NHP Trust,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0076 involving ) and thus “it is very unlikely that the Respondent would have registered a domain name incorporating the Mark without knowledge of the Mark” (Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. ...D2011-1597; Sanofi-Aventis, Aventis Pharma S.A., Merrell Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. George Breboeuf,
WIPO Case No. D2005-1345).
This Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. ...
2013-01-24 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that its rights in that mark predate the registration of the disputed domain name. It submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark, because the disputed domain name incorporates in its entirety the WORLD GOLF TOUR trademark (citing PGA TOUR, Inc. v. ...In any event, under the Policy the propriety of a domain name registration may be questioned by comparing it to a trademark registered in any country (see Thaigem Global Marketing Limited v. ...
2012-11-28 - Case Details
The Respondent is Jie Ke of Fuzhou, Fujian, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Alibaba.com Singapore E-Commerce Private Limited (the “Registrar”).
3. ...As the Respondent’s website has been inactive since it registered the disputed domain name, the Respondent has not made any demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name, let alone any actual use of the disputed domain name. ...
2018-11-08 - 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
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 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
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
Further, neither the WhoIs data for the disputed domain name nor the corresponding website available at the disputed domain name supports that the Respondent is known by the disputed domain name. ...Previous UDRP decisions have found that the mere addition of terms (such as “video downloader online”) to a trademark in a domain name does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity. This has been held in many UDRP decisions (see, e.g., Inter-IKEA Systems B.V. v. ...
2021-11-18 - Case Details
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark MICHELIN. Indeed, the disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety, which previous panels have considered to be “well-known” or “famous” (Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. ...This addition does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s well-known trademark. See Eurodrive Services and Distribution N.V v. ...
2013-12-18 - Case Details