Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. v. John Taxiarchos,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0561.
This Panel agrees that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the VERIZON mark. ...Furthermore, the Disputed Domain Name includes the entire VERIZON mark. This also supports a finding of bad faith. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2012-04-13 - Case Details
D2001-1417; Those Characters From Cleveland Inc. v. User51235 (38so92lf@whois-privacy.net),
WIPO Case No. D2006-0950). Furthermore, the registrar of the disputed domain name confirmed that the Policy applies to the disputed domain name. ...In the present case, the domain name has been registered for 13 years, which calls for an explanation; moreover, 7 years have passed since the Complainant recovered three other domain names invoking her name in Pamela Anderson v. ...
2010-10-01 - Case Details
Therefore, the Domain Name is used for commercial purposes and paragraph 4(c)(iii) is not applicable. See Overstock.com, Inc. v. ...D2011-0247 (domain name transferred); Ironfx Global Limited v. Jinsoo Yoon,
WIPO Case No. D2014-2174 (domain name transferred); Educational Testing Service v. ...
2021-01-08 - Case Details
A.3 Bad faith registration and use
Complainants state:
That Respondent has registered the contested domain name
primarily for the purpose of selling or transferring the domain name to the
Complainants or to a competitor for a valuable consideration in excess of documented
out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; that the said domain
name is offered for sale for $ 300 through an escrow company service (and cites
Carolina Herrera, Ltd v. ...See also Toronto Convention & Visitors Association v. This Domain is
For Sale /Email Your Offers, WIPO Case
No. D2001-1463, February 25, 2002: transfer to and acquisition
by a Respondent of a domain name in bad faith can be treated as equivalent to
registration of the domain name in bad faith; and Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a
Madonna v. ...
2003-06-23 - Case Details
See, e.g., Nordstrom, Inc. and NIHC, Inc. v. Inkyu Kim,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0269.
The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. ...D2009-0320; The Gap, Inc. v. Deng Youqian,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0113. It is implausible that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant when he registered the disputed domain name. ...
2016-12-13 - Case Details
The Respondent in this administrative proceeding is Lorna Kang, with a postal
mailing address listed as a post office box in Perak, 36009, Malaysia.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is . The Registrar of the domain
name is iHoldings.com, Inc. d/b/a DotRegistrar.com ("DotRegistrar.com").
3. ...On November 22, 2002, the Center requested and obtained from DotRegistrar.com,
the registrar of the disputed domain name, verification that the domain name
is registered with DotRegistrar.com and the Respondent is the registrant for
the domain name.
...
2003-01-24 - Case Details
D2011-0003; and Schneider Electric S.A. v. Domain Whois Protect Service / Cyber Domain Services Pvt. Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2015-2333).
The addition of the gTLD “.com” to the disputed domain name constitutes a technical requirement of the Domain Name System (“DNS”), and therefore has no legal significance in the present case (see CARACOLITO S SAS v. ...KG v. Marius Graur
WIPO Case No. D2019-0208).
Furthermore, panels previously appointed under the Policy have decided that typosquatting amounts to bad faith registration of a domain name (see Lexar Media, Inc. v. ...
2021-02-10 - 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. ...Bad faith can also be found where respondents “knew or should have known” of complainant’s trademark rights and nevertheless registered a domain name in which he had no right or legitimate interest. See Accor v. Kristen Hoerl,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1722. ...
2015-06-26 - Case Details
CredoNIC.com / Domain For Sale,
WIPO Case No. 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. ...
2008-11-07 - Case Details
That Respondent does not hold a trademark or trade name for the term RTVE and has not been authorized to register the domain names in dispute, and cites Société Air France v. ...and cites J. García Carrión, S.A. v. Mª José Catalán Frías,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0239).
That rerouting the domain name to a domain park or not giving a website content are undisputable signs of use that goes against good faith (and cites respectively, The British Broadcasting Corporation v. ...
2008-09-03 - Case Details
The Panel finds that the Respondent’s <1888vvsupremo.com> domain
name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s V&V SUPREMO mark.
The disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the Complainant’s
V&V SUPREMO mark and the only difference between the disputed domain name
and the Complainant’s V&V SUPREMO mark lies in the addition of the
numbers “1888” before the Complainant’s V&V SUPREMO mark
and the addition of the gTLD after it. ...See
Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Seweryn Nowak, WIPO
Case No. D2003-0022 (“the diversion of the domain names to a pornographic
site is itself certainly consistent with the finding that the Domain Name was
registered and is being used in bad faith”); America Online, Inc. v.
...
2007-02-01 - Case Details
As the dominant feature of the disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s mark MICHELIN, the adjunction of the letters “wine” is insufficient to avoid confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark (Pandora A/S v. ...Thirdly, the Complainant’s MICHELIN trademark registrations significantly predate the registration date of the disputed domain name. In this regard, previous panels have established that knowledge of the Complainant’s intellectual property rights, including trademarks, at the time of registration of the disputed domain name proves bad faith registration (Alstom v. ...
2021-04-12 - Case Details
finding confusing similarity between the domain name and the complainant’s MYHOSTING mark, even though the domain name added the word “free”); Philip Morris USA Inc. v. ...D2013-1087 (finding confusing similarity between the domain name and the complainant’s MARLBORO mark, even though the domain name added the “generic descriptive” word “team”); Tommy Bahama Group, Inc. v. ...
2014-01-28 - Case Details
No rights or legitimate interest can accrue to the disputed domain name if its use constitutes trademark infringement. See, The Chase Manhattan Corporation et al. v. ...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. ...
2011-06-30 - Case Details
The Complainant states that there is no evidence to support an argument that the Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name and that the Complainant has never licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent’s use of its STARBUCKS mark in any domain name, much less the confusingly similar Disputed Domain Name and refers to Suncor Energy Inc. v. ...The Complainant states that numerous factors also indicate that the Respondent registered and used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.
First the Complainant’s use and registration of its STARBUCKS trade mark long predates the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name and refers to Sanofi-Aventis v. ...
2019-10-17 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Maison Albert Bichot v. Andrey Serkov, Company Name Domain Names Sale Lease Individual
Case No. D2011-1294
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Maison Albert Bichot, Beaune, France, represented by Jurispatent-Cabinet Claude Guiu, France.
...The Panel relies on this statement as further support for its conclusion that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. (See also Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin, Maison Fondée en 1772 v. ...
2011-11-11 - Case Details
Given the virtual identity between Complainant’s PEPSICO mark and the domain
name at issue likelihood of confusion must be presumed. Chernow Communications,
Inc. v. Jonathan D. ...In Panavision Int’l, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1998) the Ninth Circuit stated that "A customer who is unsure about a company’s domain name will often guess that the domain name is also the company’s name…....
2002-08-16 - Case Details
v) Finally, the Complainant contends that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name but is instead passively holding the disputed domain name for commercial gain after the launch of his Internet business.
...See Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, or a corresponding name, or uses a corresponding name in a business.
...
2014-12-03 - Case Details
Moreover, to the Complainant's knowledge, the Respondent has never been commonly known by the disputed domain name and has never acquired any trademarks or service rights in it.
Moreover, the Complainant asserts that, by failing to use the disputed domain name in connection with an active website, the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services, and is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name (Philip Morris USA Inc. v. ...D2010-2195; and Terex Corporation v. Williams Sid, Partners Associate,
WIPO Case No. D2014-1742).
(c) The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2017-11-21 - Case Details
It is well-established that the top-level designation “.com” used as part of a domain name should be disregarded: (see Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr.,
WIPO Case No. ...see Match.com, LP v. Bill Zag and NWLAWS.ORG,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0230).
Paragraph 2 of the Policy clearly states: “It is your [domain-name holder’s] responsibility to determine whether your domain name registration infringes or violates someone else’s rights”. ...
2011-12-29 - Case Details