The Respondent also intentionally attempts to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, affiliation and endorsement of the Respondent’s website. ...In these circumstances, it is likely that the company has an interest in protecting the individual’s name for commercial use (on these aspects, see the discussion in Chung, Mong Koo and Hyundai Motor Company v. ...
2021-07-27 - Case Details
The country code Top-Level-Domain (“ccTLD”) for Iran (Republic of) “.ir” does not avoid the confusion.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The mere registration does not establish rights or legitimate interests in a domain name, the Parties have no connection, and no license or authorization has been given to Respondent to use Complainant’s GILEAD mark. ...On May 9, 2020, Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to Respondent followed by several WhastApp messages, which have not been replied by Respondent to evidence a right, legitimate interest or bona fide offering of goods or services. Respondent contact details in the WhoIs record for the disputed domain name are not accurate.
...
2021-10-28 - Case Details
The issue is addressed in Section 2.8.1 of WIPO Overview 3.0:
“Panels have recognized that resellers, distributors, or service providers using a domain name containing the complainant’s trademark to undertake sales or repairs related to the complainant’s goods or services may be making a bona fide offering of goods and services and thus have a legitimate interest in such domain name. Outlined in the “Oki Data test” [a test derived from the decision in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ...Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy provides that a circumstance leading to a finding of bad faith registration and use under the Policy is where the Respondent has used the Domain Name intentionally to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website for commercial gain “by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of [the] website …”.
...
2021-12-03 - Case Details
- On account of the high degree of inherent and acquired distinctiveness which
the mark SAP is possessed of, the use of this mark, or any other phonetically,
visually or deceptively similar mark, by any other person would result in immense
confusion and deception in the trade, leading to passing off.
- Complainant No.2 SAP India is a wholly owned subsidiary of SAP and is responsible
for the sales of SAP solutions, implementation, post-implementation support,
training and certification of its customers and partners in India. ...- In another e-mail correspondence the respondent had given the Complainants’
representative an ultimatum stating:
"This refers to your e-mail showing interest in buying domain
names sapmaster.com and/or sapwizard.com from me……On an urgent business trip
I am going out for two days. ...
2001-06-27 - Case Details
The Panelist did not, therefore, consider any issue of conflict of interest arose in connection with this administrative proceeding.
May 23, 2001. The Center responded to the Respondent in the following terms:
"We further note that in your communication below, you mention your willingness to cancel the domain names, and in this regard, Mr. ...Hence, loss of potential customers for the Complainant, without the Complainant having any knowledge of such confusion and resultant damage to its business.
5.1.2 Rights or Legitimate Interests
Here, the Complainant's case is as follows:
- Despite denial that the Complainant has any exclusive rights to the PRESS ASSOCIATION mark outside the United Kingdom and Ireland [see, De Havilland's August 11, 2000 letter summarised in paragraph 4.5 above], the Respondent agreed to transfer the two UK domain names. ...
2001-06-18 - Case Details
D2001-0796 (October 10, 2001) (Panel concluded that "the
Complainant has failed to show that there is no legitimate interest on the part
of the Respondent; under these circumstances, the Complainant has not made a
sufficient case for bad faith on the part of the Respondent, and in particular
helps to explain – if not justify – the Respondent’s failure to formally respond
to the cease and desist letter").
...A copy of the fax transmitted to the Respondent, attached with the said
cease/desist letter, is attached herewith as Annex [7];
(e) The Respondent registered the domain name to perhaps intentionally create a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship or affiliation with the Complainant’s mark, particularly in the Western Samoa – AltaVista Company v. ...
2002-07-19 - Case Details
Thus, the Respondent’s conduct would appear to be “in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services”, unless the evidence indicates that his actual motivation was a bad-faith intent to exploit the Complainant’s REBELDE mark, which could not be considered a bona fide commercial interest. That question is better addressed below, in examining the bad-faith element of the UDRP Complaint.
...Thus, paragraph 4(b), which provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances that indicate bad faith, includes the following:
“(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line 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.”
...
2008-01-07 - Case Details
Thus the consensus view is that paragraph 4(c) shifts the burden 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. ...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, shall be considered evidence of the registration or use of a domain name in bad faith:
(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant (the owner of the trademark or service mark) or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name;
(ii) circumstances indicating that the respondent 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 the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct;
(iii) circumstances indicating that the respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) circumstances indicating that the respondent intentionally is using the domain name in an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.
...
2007-12-17 - Case Details
The Complainant alleges further that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name within the meaning of par 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, arguing that none of the grounds that might satisfy this requirement under par 4(c) are present. ...Paragraph 4(b) then provides that the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, 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 [the Respondent] 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 [the Respondent] 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 [the Respondent] have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, you [the Respondent] have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location.
...
2006-11-28 - Case Details
A.8 Fourth, it is clear – the Complainant says – that the Respondent has used the domain name in issue for commercial gain by attracting Internet users to the website and creating a likelihood of confusion with its MOTHERHOOD and MOTHERHOOD MATERNITY marks as to affiliation of the products offered on that website with those trademarks. ...Discussion and Findings
6.1 The Policy paragraph 4(a) provides that the Complainant must prove each of the following in order to succeed in an administrative proceeding:
— that the Respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
— that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
— that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
6.2 As stated above, the Policy paragraph 4(c) sets out circumstances which, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved shall demonstrate the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interest in the domain name in issue.
6.3 The Policy paragraph 4(b) sets out circumstances which, again in particular but without limitation, if found the Panel to be present shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.
6.4 Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.4.1 As to proof of the Complainant's rights in the MOTHERHOOD and MATERNITY. ...
2007-06-08 - Case Details
The former suggests that the Respondent thinks its case too weak to bother defending or that the costs (in time and effort) outweigh the value it puts on the domain name: either indicates some weakness in the ability of the Respondent to show at least a right or legitimate interest. Alternatively, having something to hide suggests at least some element of bad faith motivation.
...However, the consensus view is qualified such that “In certain situations, when the respondent is clearly aware of the complainant, and it is clear that the aim of the registration was to take advantage of the confusion between the domain name and any potential complainant rights, bad faith can be found.”
For the reasons set out above, the Panel considers that the circumstantial evidence in this case is indicative of the type of bad faith described in this qualification to the WIPO Overview. ...
2010-08-25 - Case Details
The Panel notes that the Respondent has not provided evidence of circumstances of the type specified in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or evidence of any other circumstances giving rise to a right to or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. The Panel further notes that the Respondent has failed to submit a Response to the Complaint filed against it. ...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four circumstances which, without limitation, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith, namely:
(i) circumstances indicating that a respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to a complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of the complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) A respondent has 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 the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) A respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, a respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with a complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the respondent’s website or location.
...
2013-08-02 - Case Details
The Complainant further asserts that the
Respondent’s failure to address the correspondence sent to him is an additional indicator that the
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name.
Accordingly, the Complainant has set out, in detail, contentions supported by previous UDRP decisions as to
why:
(a) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service marks owned by
the Complainant;
(b) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(c) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy
(WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1) establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if
found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad
faith, namely:
(i) circumstances indicating that [the respondent] has registered or [the respondent] has 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 [the respondent’s] documented out of pocket costs directly related to the
domain name; or
(ii) [the respondent] has 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 [the respondent] has
engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) [the respondent] has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a
competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, [the respondent] has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial again,
Internet users to [the respondent’s] website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with
the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of [the respondent’s]
website or location or of a product or service on [the respondent’s] website or location.
...
2025-01-29 - Case Details
Further, despite the Center having sent an email regarding the language of
the proceeding and the Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding in both
Chinese and English, the Respondent did not make any submission with respect to the language of the
proceeding or indicate any interest in otherwise participating in the proceeding.
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 6
In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the Registration Agreement, the Panel has to
exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties, taking into account all
relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the parties’ ability to understand and use the
proposed language, time, and costs. ...The fourth of these circumstances is
as follows:
“(iv) by using the [disputed] domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for
commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent’s] 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 [the respondent’s] website or location or of a product or service on [the respondent’s] web site or location.”
...
2025-07-29 - Case Details
The gay ‘bear’ community is an underserved demographic deserving of an opportunity to
find love.
Hope this helps clear up any confusion.”
The Response annexes what appears to be a mock-up of a home page for a website to be associated with
the disputed domain name, headed “Grizzly Ammunition”, with tabs such as “Meat and Greet”, “Shop”, and
“Contact”, beside a photo of three muscular, bearded men under a caption with a double entendre referring
to “big bears” and “shooting”. ...The
Respondent does not offer a business plan, evidence of preparatory expenditures, or any indication of
genuine prior interest in or commitment to the LGBTQ+ community. Thus, it is difficult to see the email and
draft web page as anything other than an escalation of the Parties’ ongoing dispute rather than a new, bona
fide commercial undertaking. ...
2025-08-21 - Case Details
The Complainants state that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to their ATACADAO
trademark, because they reproduce this trademark in its entirety as their only distinctive element, in
combination with one or more dictionary words such as “card”, “cartao” (Portuguese for “card”), “brasil”, and
“pagamento” (Portuguese for “payment”), whose inclusion does not diminish the likelihood of confusion with
the Complainants’ trademarks. The Complainants also state that the disputed domain names
, , , ,
, , , and
are also confusingly similar to their CARTÃO ATACADÃO trademark,
and that the inversion of the word elements of this trademark and the use of the letter “a” instead of “ã” does
not diminish the confusing similarity with their trademarks. ...They are affiliated to
each other and have a common interest in the ATACADAO and CARTÃO ATACADÃO trademarks. They
also describe a common grievance against the Respondent where it has allegedly engaged in a conduct that
has affected their rights. ...
2025-05-20 - Case Details
• The Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith because, inter alia, “the
mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names
comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term to a well-known trademark[)] can by itself
create a presumption of bad faith” (internal punctuation and citations omitted); the passive-holding doctrine
does not prevent a finding of bad faith even in the absence of a website associated with the Disputed
Domain Name; “[w]here there is no evidence of rights or legitimate interest, and no reasonable explanation
for the respondent’s choice of domain name, a finding of bad faith is supported”; the Disputed Domain
Name’s misspelling of the GIBSON DUNN Trademark “signals an intention on the part of the respondent to
confuse users seeking or expecting the complainant” (internal punctuation and citation omitted); “[t]he fame
of the Gibson Dunn mark and the existence of the firm’s legitimate website, gibsondunn.com, which is easily
located upon a simple Google search, further demonstrate Respondent could only have been operating in
bad faith when it seized control of the disputed domain name”; “[t]he most plausible explanation is that
Respondent fraudulently intercepted control over the disputed domain name to unduly benefit from the
Complainant, its service mark, and associated goodwill”; and the Respondent used false contact information
when registering the Disputed Domain Name, including an incomplete street address, a telephone number
that is “invalid on its face”, and a nonexistent ZIP code.
...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Whether a domain name is registered and used in bad faith for purposes of the Policy may be determined by
evaluating four (non-exhaustive) factors set forth in the Policy: (i) circumstances indicating that the registrant
has registered or 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 the registrant’s
documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) the registrant has 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 the registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii)
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.1/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.1/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.1/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.1/
page 5
the registrant has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a
competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, the registrant has intentionally attempted to attract, for
commercial gain, Internet users to the registrant’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of
confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the
registrant’s website or location or of a product or service on the registrant’s website or location. ...
2026-07-10 - Case Details
The Disputed Domain Names reflect Respondent’s own independent laser
interest, not Complainant’s brand.
Respondent contends that Complainant is engaging in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
...Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets forth four nonexclusive criteria for Complainant to show bad faith
registration and use of domain names:
(i) circumstances indicating that you [Respondent] have registered or you have acquired the Disputed
Domain Names primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Disputed Domain
Names registration to Complainant who is the owner of the Marks or to a competitor of Complainant, for
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.1/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.1/
page 7
valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Disputed
Domain Names; or
(ii) you [Respondent] have registered the Disputed Domain Names in order to prevent the owner of the
Marks from reflecting the Marks in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a
pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) you [Respondent] have registered the Disputed Domain Names primarily for the purpose of disrupting the
business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the Disputed Domain Names, you [Respondent] have intentionally attempted to attract, for
commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion
with Complainant's Marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or
location or of a product on your website or location.
...
2026-05-29 - Case Details
Furthermore, the Respondent creates a
likelihood of confusion with the Complainant and its trademarks by registering a domain name that
incorporates the Complainant’s ETIHAD trademark, which demonstrates that the Respondent is using the
domain to confuse unsuspecting Internet users looking for the Complainant’s services and to mislead them
as to the source of the disputed domain name and/or capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the
Complainant’s mark.
...The Respondent acknowledges that the Complainant has standing under the Policy but submits that the
Complainant has not made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks a right or legitimate interest in the
disputed domain name. The Respondent needs no license or authorization from the Complainant to offer it
for sale. ...
2026-01-28 - Case Details
The Websites include disclaimers stating that Respondent does
not have any connection to Complainant. Complainant has not shown any interest for the countries
appearing in the disputed domain names. Any rabbit head design logo depictions included in the Websites
were not prominent and they were a mistake of the web-designer, furthermore they are being replaced.
...The disputed domain names
were therefore used to intentionally create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trademarks and
business as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website they resolved to. ...
2026-02-11 - Case Details