In the circumstances, the Panel finds that this factor weighs in the balance against Respondent.
(f) Has the respondent registered all or most of the obvious domain names suitable for the owner of the mark?
...
2014-03-19 - Case Details
The Complainant has failed to sufficiently demonstrate common law trademark rights, let alone common law trademark rights going back to 2002, or even 2004.
f) No Common Law Trademark Rights Alleged from 2002 or 2003
Finally, the Complainant has not alleged in its Complaint, that it had acquired common law trademark rights prior to 2004, i.e. in 2002 or 2003. ...
2014-06-24 - Case Details
Article 21(3) of the Regulation and Paragraph B(11)(f) of the ADR Rules provide a non-exhaustive list of circumstances which, if found by the Panel to be present, may be evidence of the registration or use of a domain name in bad faith:
(1) circumstances indicating that the domain name was registered or acquired primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name to the holder of a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by national and/or Community law, or to a public body; or
(2) the domain name has been registered in order to prevent the holder of such a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by national and/or Community law, or a public body, from reflecting this name in a corresponding domain name, provided that:
(i) the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(ii) the domain name has not been used in a relevant way for at least two years from the date of registration; or
(iii) there are circumstances where, at the time the ADR Proceeding was initiated, the Respondent has declared its intention to use the domain name, in respect of which a right is recognized or established by national and/or Community law or which corresponds to the name of a public body, in a relevant way but failed to do so within six months of the day on which the ADR Proceeding was initiated;
(3) the domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting the professional activities of a competitor; or
(4) the domain name was intentionally used to attract Internet users, for commercial gain to the Respondent's website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with a name on which a right is recognized or established, by national and/or Community law, or it is a name of a public body, such likelihood arising as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website or location or of a product or service on the website or location of the Respondent; or
(5) the domain name is a personal name for which no demonstrable link exists between the Respondent and the domain name registered.
...
2017-09-27 - Case Details
DME2010-0008; Telecom Personal, S.A., v. NAMEZERO.COM, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0015; F. Hoffmann La Roche AG v. Macalve e-dominios S.A.,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0451; Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2016-09-28 - Case Details
除非出于清楚说明案件事实目的，被投诉人1与被投诉人2在下文统称为"被投诉人"。参见保时捷股份公司 (Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche Aktiengesellschaft) 诉 zhoushifeng, zuozhixiao, beijingzunbaohangqichemaoyiyouxiangongsi，WIPO案件编号D2015-1318及参见WIPO Overview 2.0，第4.16段。
...
2016-06-20 - Case Details
在有关争议域名所针对的群众及/或地域所采用的语言或方言中，对相当数量的群众而言，哪个音译最为适合或被认可；
(e) 根据双方的行为，交往的书信和案件中的文件，当事人双方是否有明示或暗示的采纳了某个音译；
(f) 在考虑所有因素（包括但不限于上述各因素）后，专家组才作出裁决认定某一声称的音译是否与投诉人原有中文文字的商标相同或混淆性相似。
作出上述的分析时，专家组有需要谨慎和小心地作出分析。在这过程中，专家组应考虑到：
(a) 注册人在注册某一种文字的商标时，商标局要考虑的因素包括有关文字的形，音和意。...
2010-10-14 - Case Details
Hinsichtlich Wortmarken ist es ausreichend, dass der Marke kein für die beanspruchten Waren / Dienstleistungen im Vordergrund stehender Begriffsinhalt zugeordnet werden kann und es sich auch sonst nicht um ein Wort der deutschen oder einer bekannten Fremdsprache handelt, das vom Verkehr stets nur als solches und nicht als Unterscheidungsmittel verstanden wird (ständige Rechtsprechung des BGH MarkenR 2003, 338 f. – Bar jeder Vernunft). Eine Recherche in der Datenbank des Deutschen Patent- und Markenamts (im folgenden „DPMA“) hat eine Reihe von zurückgewiesenen Markenanmeldungen hervorgebracht, die den Begriff „Portal“ enthalten. ...
2013-05-06 - Case Details
In all of these circumstances, the Panel finds that the Complainant has failed to demonstrate that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names and consequently that the second element under the Policy has not been established.
F. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
For the same reasons as the Panel noted in the preceding section, concerning the evidence as to the Respondent’s intent in registering the disputed domain names, the Panel finds that the Complainant has failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. ...
2013-05-23 - Case Details
In these circumstances, the Panel finds that the Complainants have proved that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy have been satisfied.
F. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides four, non-exclusive, circumstances that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
“(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out of pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’ s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location”.
...
2014-01-09 - Case Details
The Panel admits this unsolicited filing into the case.
F. Procedural Order No. 3 [it should be noted that when the Panel issued this Procedural Order, the Panel was unaware of the Respondent’s unsolicited filing referred to at E above]
Noting gaps in the parties’ evidence, the Panel issued Procedural Order No. 3 in which the Panel set out the history of the Domain Name as understood by the Panel. ...
2018-04-16 - Case Details
Domains by Proxy, LLC, DomainsByProxy.com / Woman to Woman Healthcare / Just Us Women Health Center f/k/a Woman to Woman Health Center,
WIPO Case No. D2012-1555 “The fact that Complainant is represented by counsel makes the filing of this Complaint all the more inexcusable. ...
2018-02-19 - Case Details
e) 5 个争议域名的注册机构都是或曾是：Alibaba Cloud Computing。
(f) 5 个争议域名都托管或曾托管在Alibaba Cloud 的DNS 服务器HICHINA.com上。
专家组认为，投诉人提供了充分的证据, 证明5 个争议域名或相应的网站是为被投诉人1 和被投诉人2（以下合称为被投诉人）统一操控。...
2019-03-04 - Case Details
E) DOTERRA (nominativa), en clases 11 y 9, registros número 1730835 y 1730836, solicitados el 3 de noviembre de 2016.
F) DOTERRA (mixta), en clase 30, registro número 1767883, solicitado el 24 de febrero de 2017.
La Promovente es también titular de la marca DOTERRA registrada en los Estados Unidos el 4 de octubre de 2016, bajo el número de registro 5054734, en clases 3,5 y 11 y con fecha de primer uso de 29 de julio de 2008.
...
2019-01-31 - Case Details
As demonstrated by Respondent, it has shown that it:
(a) does not target the trademarks of others when it searches and registers terms as domain names; instead, Respondent searches for and registers commonly-searched Internet terms;
(b) does not make it a business practice to offer to sell the domain names it has registered, if they happen to be trademarks, to their owners;
(c) has not approached Complainant, nor offered to sell to it the Domain Name registration for any fee or an excessive fee;
(d) has not registered the Domain Name with the intent to impede Complainant from using the term "renfe";
(e) does not own other domain names that contain the term "renfe";
(f) had registered the Domain Name and created its own web site for the bone fide offering of its own services before it received notice of Complainant’s claim;
(g) clearly indicates on its web site that Complainant is the owner of the RENFE mark;
(h) is not a competitor of Complainant’s; and
(i) has not disrupted Complainant’s business...
2001-11-28 - Case Details
As the Complainant put it in its Reply Statement: "What business registers domain names for 6 years, claims to invest thousands of dollars into the websites for those addresses, lists all the domain names which it claims will be doing business from and, while at no time during those 6 years offering any services from those domain names, then reverts to the holding page exhibited at the last page of Annex F of the Complaint which fails even to advertise or promote the Respondent?"
16. The Respondent’s claim that it told the Complainant it would "consider sale of sponsorship or advertising on the sites" is not substantiated with other evidence.
17. ...
2002-10-30 - Case Details
e) The domain name is confusingly similar to the and domain names which are used by the Complainant in its business.
f) The screen capture taken in February 2005, is the same as the December 2003 screen, demonstrating that, since December 4, 2003, there has been no legitimate interest in or use of the domain name.
5.2.5 The Respondent cannot rely upon paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy. ...
2005-06-10 - Case Details
Arunesh C. Puthiyoth,
Caso OMPI No. D2000-0812; A & F Trademark, Abercrombie & Fitch Store, Inc., Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co., Inc. c. Party Night,
Caso OMPI No. ...
2009-08-24 - Case Details
D2006-1620 (in which Moniker is also involved) and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. PrivacyProtect.org, Domain Admin and Mark Sergijenko,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1854, must be considered.
...
2008-06-09 - Case Details
Kotabi failed or refused to return Gold Line Group’s telephone calls.
(f) Gold Line Group Contacts DotRegistrar Regarding the Unauthorized Transfer of the Domain Name
Upon receiving Mr. ...
2003-02-03 - Case Details
By contrast, where such links are based on trade mark value, UDRP panels have tended to consider such practices generally as unfair use resulting in misleading diversion.”
F. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
6.28 There are aspects of the way in which the Respondent has put its case that the entire Panel finds unconvincing. ...
2025-08-26 - Case Details