The Complainant also argues that the disputed domain names are used
explicitly and exclusively for commercial purposes, namely the sale of unauthorized merchandise, and
therefore cannot reasonably be characterized as noncommercial, which means that the Respondents
cannot credibly claim that the disputed domain names serve as bona fide fan sites or reflect any
legitimate interest in that regard.
As to bad faith, the Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names were registered and are
being used in bad faith. ...The Panel concludes from these facts that the
Respondent was intentionally attracting Internet users for commercial gain to such website, by
creating consumer confusion between the website associated with the disputed domain names and
the Complainant’s trademarks. ...
2025-07-28 - Case Details
D2001-0903, a reseller or distributor may have a legitimate interest in a domain name
incorporating a trade mark where the respondent is actually offering the goods or services at issue, uses the
site to sell only the trade marked goods, where the site does not falsely suggest that the reseller is the trade
mark owner, or that the website is an official website and provided that there is no evidence that the re-seller
has attempted to corner the market. ...Under paragraph 2.1.4 of the Policy there is evidence of registration or use of the disputed domain name in
bad faith where a Respondent has used the disputed domain name to intentionally attract, for commercial
gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with a protected identifier in which the
Complainant has rights.
The LOST MARY mark is highly distinctive in relation to e-cigarette products and appears to enjoy an
international reputation from around 2022 onwards. ...
2026-04-17 - Case Details
Therefore, for easy comprehension of the Complainant (ultimately, the Party solely taking part in the
proceeding) of the Panel’s decision without any necessity of translations, and in the interest of fairness to
both Parties as well as the Panel’s obligation under paragraph 10(c) of the Rules, which provides that “the
Panel shall ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition”, the Panel hereby
decides, under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, that the language of the proceeding shall be English and shall
render its decision in English.
...III) Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy identifies, in particular, but without limitation, four circumstances which, if found
by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith,
including:
“(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 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 your website or location or of a product or
service on your website or location.”
...
2023-12-11 - Case Details
The Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith:
- The Respondent is using the Complainant’s trademark SANDVIK COROMANT in order to intentionally
attempt to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating likelihood of confusion with the
Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website or goods or
services offered on it, given that:
- The Disputed Domain Name used to resolve to a website displaying the
Complainant’s SANDVIK COROMANT trademark and including certain images and information aimed at
misleading Internet users into thinking that the website was operated by or affiliated with the Complainant.
...Therefore, for the purpose of easy comprehension of the Complainant of the Panel’s decision without any
necessity of translations, and in the interest of fairness to both Parties as well as the Panel’s obligation under
paragraph 10(c) of the Rules, which provides that “the Panel shall ensure that the administrative proceeding
takes place with due expedition”, the Panel hereby decides, under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, that the
language of the proceeding shall be English and shall render its decision in English.
...
2023-07-28 - Case Details
That only serves to indicate the type and code level of the domain name, and thus, does not help dispel
Internet users’ confusion.
The first-level portion of the disputed domain name contains the GRAB trademarks in their entirety, with a
single typographical variation. ...There is no record showing that the Respondent has ever established a right to or legitimate interest in any
domain name, trademark or trade name incorporating or similar to the GRAB trademarks.
...
2024-02-23 - Case Details
page 4
Thus, the Complainant contends that the Respondent in not commonly known under the disputed domain
name and has no rights to or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
Registered and used in bad faith
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...In light of the aforesaid, the Panel establishes that, by using the domain name, the Respondent has
intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, 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.
...
2023-05-17 - Case Details
The website does not expressly advertise the Complainant’s interest in investing in
new projects or his availability to provide consulting services, although these might be inferred from text such
as the following on the “My Story” page of the website:
page 3
“I am a born entrepreneur and over the last 15 years having spent the majority of my career helping advise
and raise capital for specific companies and transactions. ...The Respondent argues that there is no similarity between the Respondent’s website and the Complainant’s
and no likelihood of confusion. The Respondent also claims nominative fair use of the disputed domain
names and argues that they were registered and have been used only for noncommercial purposes, for
news reporting and news commentary and that there “has been no attempt to sell, rent or otherwise transfer
the domain names to anybody”.
...
2023-05-12 - Case Details
Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy a non-exhaustive list of factors evidencing registration and use in bad
faith comprises:
(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 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.
...Further even if the Respondent had taken steps at the time he registered the Disputed Domain Name
to enquire as to the previous registrant’s position the result may or may not have led him to the conclusion
that the Complainant had an ongoing interest in the term “ahnu”. In this regard see DSPA B.V. v. Bill
Patterson, Reserved Media LLC, WIPO Case No. ...
2024-06-25 - Case Details
DRO2012-0006 (The Panel held that the Respondent on not being an authorized fan page,
lacks right and legitimate interest as their intent was to drag traffic away from the complainant’s official page).
Respondent, therefore, is using the disputed domain name to suggest an affiliation with or sponsorship by
Complainant to further Respondent’s unauthorized sale of purportedly counterfeit products. ...The Panel finds bad faith use, therefore, because the substantial evidence in the
record shows Respondent has been and is using the disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to
attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with
Complainant’s ANTI SOCIAL Mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its misleading
website to sell unauthorized and competing products in violation of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
...
2024-05-10 - Case Details
As such,
the two entities have a sufficient common legal interest in the BLANCPAIN and SWATCH Marks
incorporated in the Disputed Domain Names. Further, the Complaint includes seven Disputed Domain
Names, all of which are registered by the same individual, and six of them resolve to the same fashion web
template. ...The use of a domain name to intentionally attempt to attract
Internet users to a respondent’s website or online location by creating a likelihood of confusion with a
complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the registrant’s website or
online location for commercial gain demonstrates registration and use in bad faith. ...
2024-01-29 - Case Details
In the light of the above, the Panel finds that the Complainants have a specific common grievance against
the Respondents because they share a common legal interest in the trademark rights on which this
Complaint is based since both Complainants allege a corporate connection. ...One of these circumstances is that the Respondent by using the disputed domain name, has intentionally
attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its 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 its website or location or of a product or service on its website or location (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy).
...
2024-07-16 - Case Details
Noting that the Panel would be
fully within its discretion to disregard Respondent’s submissions, given that the emails arrived before the
decision date they are exceptionally taken into account in the interest of completeness of the record, but are
of limited weight given the factors noted above.
6.2 Substantive Issues
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules provides that the Panel is to decide the Complaint on the basis of the
statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, the Rules, and any rules and principles
of law that it deems applicable.
...The Panel finds that the evidence presented here
supports Complainant’s contention that Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name was solely to
prevent Complainant from registering the disputed domain name, which has been inactive since registration,
and that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to attract internet users to the Respondent’s
disputed domain name by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or
endorsement of the Respondent’s Domain Name satisfies Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv).
...
2024-05-17 - Case Details
The association of the Complainant’s well-known
trademark with the term “France” increases the likelihood of confusion since: (i) the head office of the
Complainant is in France; (ii) the Complainant’s E. LECLERC chain of supermarkets and hypermarkets is
mainly implemented in France (more than 730 stores in France as indicated above); (iii) the Complainant’s
E. ...In its communication with the
Complainant the Respondent stated they registered other domain names reproducing company names of
entities belonging to the Complainant’s organization and the Respondent requested money in exchange for
the transfer of these domain names. The Respondent never proved any legitimate interest in the registration
of domain names reproducing trademarks or company names from entities belonging to the Complainant’s
organization. ...
2024-06-19 - Case Details
Respondent, therefore, is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name
nor using it in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services to confer a right or legitimate interest
within the meaning of Policy paragraphs 4(c)(i) and (iii) because there is no evidence the disputed domain
name is being used at all. ...case=D2017-0075
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0624.html
page 5
First, Complainant contends that since Complainant has developed a distinctive and widely recognized
reputation in the ALLIED UNIVERSAL Mark, Respondent was no doubt aware of the ALLIED UNIVERSAL
Mark and intentionally targeted Complainant and its mark in making the decision to configure and register the
disputed domain name essentially identical to Complainant’s ALLIED UNIVERSAL Mark except for the
addition of the term “career” which enhances the likelihood of confusion with Complainant by adding a
descriptive term which implies the disputed domain name is a resource for those seeking to work for
Complainant.
...
2024-05-27 - Case Details
On March 15, 2024, the Complainant
contacted the Respondent by email claiming that the website linked to the Disputed Domain Name creates
confusion with the Complainant’s brand and services, and distributes several copyrighted comics without the
rightsholder’s’ authorization. ...However, the Respondent essentially asserts that it did not target the Complainant as it had never heard of
the Complainant before the Complainant contacted him and that it has a legitimate interest in respect of the
Disputed Domain Name because it uses the Disputed Domain Name to associate it to a website dedicated to
a multiplayer video game.
...
2024-10-14 - Case Details
More importantly, “Gambero Rosso” is a famous venue in the novel “Pinocchio” of Carlo Collodi, dated 1883, one of the most famous novels of all time, especially in Italy.
The Respondent says that it has a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. The Complainant says that, given the extent of the Complainant’s business, it is impossible to believe that the Complainant ignored the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name. ...These include:
“(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the Domain Name primarily for the purposes 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 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 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.”
...
2014-09-29 - 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 a domain name in bad faith, namely:
(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent 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 the 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 gain, Internet users to the respondent's 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 of the respondent's website or location.
...
2014-06-03 - Case Details
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has the onus of proof under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy that the Respondent does not have any right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides that the Respondent may seek to establish rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name by demonstrating, for example, but without limitation:
“(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.”
...Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy lists four alternative circumstances that shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith by a respondent:
“(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 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.”
...
2014-07-02 - Case Details
The circumstances indicate that, by using the disputed domain names, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to create a likelihood of confusion in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
The disputed domain names are connected to a website sponsoring, among others, banking and financial services, for which the Complainant’s trade marks are registered and used. ...If the respondent does come forward with some allegations or evidence of relevant rights or legitimate interest, the panel then weighs all the evidence, with the burden of proof always remaining on the complainant.”
...
2015-03-04 - Case Details
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy non-exhaustively lists three circumstances that demonstrate a right or legitimate interest in a domain name:
i. before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
ii. you (as an individual, business or other organisation) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
iii. you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
...Under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy a non-exhaustive list of factors evidencing registration and use in bad faith comprises:
(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 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.
...
2015-08-14 - Case Details