DCO2017-0043 (citing Longs Drug Stores California, Inc. v. Shep Dog,
WIPO Case No. D2004-1069 (finding typosquatting to be evidence of bad faith domain name registration); Lexar Media, Inc. v. ...See e.g., Arkema France v. Steve Co., Stave Co Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2017-1632.
Finally, the use of a deceptive domain name for an email scam has previously been found by panels to be sufficient to establish that a domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. ...
2020-02-19 - Case Details
See e.g. Red Bull GmbH v. Chai Larbthanasub, WIPO Case No. D2003-0709 relating to the domain name ; Red Bull Gmbh v. ...Polanski, WIPO Case No. D2000-1614, relating to the domain name ; Wal-Mart stores Inc v. Walmarket Canada, WIPO Case No. D2000-0150, relating to the domain name .
...
2007-07-20 - Case Details
The Respondent is Gandiyork, SL - B98466980 of Valencia, Spain.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the "Registrar").
3. ...Moreover, it has been engaged in several URS procedures in which the registration of the respective domain name has been found to be illegitimate (Media-Saturn-Holding GmbH v. Gandiyork, SL - B98466980 et al., NAF Claim No. 1552029 ; Lidl Stiftung & Co. ...
2014-12-02 - Case Details
Complainant asserts that Respondent is not actively using the Domain
Name. Under Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, "the
concept of a domain name ‘being used in bad faith’ is not limited to positive
action; inaction is within the concept. ...Complainant
asserts that Respondent is not actively using the Domain Name. Under Telstra
Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, "the concept of a domain name
‘being used in bad faith’ is not limited to positive action; inaction is within
the concept. ...
2001-08-28 - Case Details
D2008-0351; Sanford Winery Company v. Matt Geiser,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0210). The Complainant alleges that the Respondent’s only reason in registering and using the disputed domain name is to prevent the Complainant to reflect its CASTROL trademark in a corresponding domain name.
...However, the requirement of the Policy of a domain name “being used in bad faith” is not limited to positive actions (see, e.g. Beiersdorf AG v. Web4comm Srl Romania,
WIPO Case No. ...
2011-04-12 - Case Details
NetDirect,
WIPO Case No. D2011-0220). When a domain name incorporates a distinctive mark in its entirety, it creates sufficient similarity between the mark and the domain name to render it confusingly similar (see EAuto, L.L.C. v. ...D2011-0203).
By offering to sell the domain name for a value exceeding the cost to register a domain name to the Complainant the Respondent has shown bad faith (see Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. ...
2018-07-18 - Case Details
Therefore, this inclusion should not be taken into account when evaluating the identity or similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant's trademark (New York Insurance Company v. Arunesh C. Puthiyoth,
WIPO Case No. ...Many UDRP decisions stated that both conditions are cumulative (
WIPO Case No. D2000-0001, Robert Ellenbogen v. Mike Pearson). Thus, 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.
...
2009-07-09 - Case Details
It is well established that there is no bona fide offering of goods and services where the use of the disputed domain name for such offering constitutes a trademark infringement (cf. Serta, Inc. v. Maximum Investment Corporation,
WIPO Case No. ...It is well established that a transfer of a domain name to a third party amounts to a new registration under the Policy (cf. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions; Substance Abuse Management, Inc. v. ...
2011-06-03 - Case Details
It is established case law that the country code Top-Level Domain (ccTLD) “.nl” may be disregarded in assessing the similarity between the relevant trademark 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).
The Domain Name 360 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademarks, because the Domain Name 360 incorporates the Trademarks in their entirety. ...
2013-12-05 - 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
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
In fact, multiple panels have found that the use of a mark in its entirety together with a geographic term in a domain name creates a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark. See, e.g., Playboy Enterprises International Inc. v. Melancia,
WIPO Case No. D2006-1106; AT&T Corp. v. WorldclassMedia.com,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0553; Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. CredoNic.com / Domain Name for Sale,
WIPO Case No. ...
2020-12-10 - Case Details
Milan Kovac,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1159, regarding the domain name , and Revlon Consumer Products Corporation v. Privacy-Protect.org / Milan Kovac,
WIPO Case No. ...As found in Harrah’s License company, LLC v. WHOIS IF Theft Protection, NAF Case No. FA797840, “[r]espondent cannot be commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy 4(c)(ii). ...
2011-08-29 - Case Details
Although the disputed domain name also includes the letters "hr" and the term "recruitment", said fact does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity of the disputed domain name as compared to the Complainant's trademarks (see, The Ritz Hotel, Limited v. ...Likewise, in cases specifically concerned with advance fee fraud, previous UDRP panels have found the disputed domain name to have been registered in bad faith where the disputed domain name was used for fraudulent activity (see, La Française des Jeux v. ...
2016-10-20 - Case Details
Scope of the Policy
The Policy is addressed to resolving disputes concerning allegations of abusive domain name registration and use. Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation v. Bay Verte Machinery, Inc. d/b/a The Power Tool Store,
WIPO Case No. ...Thus, the view is that the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with evidence of a right or legitimate interest in the domain name, once the complainant has made a prima facie showing. See, e.g., Document Technologies, Inc. v. ...
2019-02-15 - Case Details
In fact, multiple panels have found that the use of a mark in its entirety together with a geographic term in a domain name creates a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark. See, e.g., Playboy Enterprises International Inc. v. Melancia,
WIPO Case No. D2006-1106; AT&T Corp. v. WorldclassMedia.com,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0553; Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. CredoNic.com / Domain Name for Sale,
WIPO Case No. ...
2021-09-14 - Case Details
See e.g., EAuto, L.L.C. v. EAuto Parts,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0096; Komatsu Ltd. v. RKWeb Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0995. The mere addition of "fc" to "marlboro" does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant's trademark. ...Also the addition of the gTLD suffix ".net" to a disputed domain name does not avoid confusing similarity. See F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Macalve e-dominios S.A.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2015-12-15 - Case Details
Indeed, persons accessing the disputed domain name would be bound to think that
the domain name has a connection with the Complainant (see Sanofi-Aventis
v. ...See also, on this general
principle, Pomellato S.p.A v. Tonetti, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0493, in which the panel found that the domain name
is identical to the complainant’s mark because the generic top-level domain
(gTLD) “.com” after the name POMELLATO, is not relevant; and Blue
Sky Software Corp. v. ...
2006-05-08 - 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 Complainant argues further that the creation of landing pages in order to disrupt its business constitutes use of the disputed domain name in bad faith and refers to Mpire Corporation v. Michael Frey, WIPO Case D2009-0258 and Asian World of Material Arts Inc. v. ...In addition, the “.com” suffix in the disputed domain name does not affect the determination that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with RED BULL in which the Complainant has trademark rights (see also Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. ...
2013-05-23 - Case Details