The Panel notes that Respondent has not provided evidence of circumstances of the type specified in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or of any other circumstances giving rise to a right to or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. The Panel further notes that Respondent has failed to submit a Response to the Complaint filed against it. ...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
According to paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, 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 disputed domain name in bad faith:
(1) Circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or has acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of Respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(2) 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 Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(3) Respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(4) By using the domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his/her 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 his/her website or location or of a product or service on his/her website or location.
...
2015-12-01 - Case Details
The addition of the term "businessdelivery" only serves to reinforce that confusion. As noted in section 1.9 of the auDA auDRP Overview 1.0:
"The addition of merely generic, descriptive, or geographical wording to a trademark or name in a domain name would normally be insufficient, of itself, to avoid a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the auDRP. ...There is otherwise little evidence in the case file that would, on its own, suggest that the Respondent might have some right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. The Respondent's only communications in connection with this case suggest only that he is seeking some way to get rid of the disputed domain name. ...
2017-10-13 - Case Details
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the disputed domain names in bad faith:
(i) Circumstances indicating that the Respondent has registered or has acquired the disputed domain names primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registrations 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 disputed domain names; or
(ii) The Respondent has registered the disputed domain names in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in corresponding domain names, provided that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) The Respondent has registered the disputed domain names primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) By using the disputed domain names, the 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 the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of such website or location or of a product or service on such website or location.
...The Respondent’s intentional registration of the disputed domain names incorporating the Complainant’s well-known mark, being fully aware of the Complainant’s rights in the mark, without any right or legitimate interest in doing so is registration in bad faith. See, e.g., Research In Motion Limited v. Privacy Locked LLC/Nat Collicot,
WIPO Case No. ...
2017-08-08 - Case Details
Thus, the consensus view is that paragraph 4(c) of the Policy shifts the burden of production 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 and use of a domain name in bad faith:
(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent registered or acquired the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the disputed 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 the respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name; or
(ii) circumstances indicating that the respondent registered the disputed 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) circumstances indicating that the respondent registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) circumstances indicating that the respondent is using the domain name to intentionally attempt 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 the respondent's website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.
...
2017-11-06 - Case Details
D2000-1803 () in which the Panel considered that inverting the terms of a mark is insufficient to dispel consumer confusion.
The Complainant further argues that there are no rights or legitimate interests held by the Respondent in respect of the Domain Names. ...D2000-0766) by the at-issue domain at the time of registration in order to have a legitimate interest in the domain.
Furthermore the Complainant has not licensed, authorized, or permitted the Respondent to register domain names incorporating the Complainant’s trademark. ...
2018-05-29 - Case Details
Complainant concludes that based on the arguments and evidence presented, Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the Domain Name.
(iii) Registered and used in bad faith.
Complainant contends that Respondent registered the Domain Name in order to profit in some way off of the goodwill in Complainant's IMRALDI mark, while preventing Complainant from reflecting it's mark in a corresponding domain name. ...Respondent's intent could include the sale of the Domain Name for profit to Complainant or someone else, or use of the Domain Name to redirect Internet users to commercial content by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's IMRALDI mark.
Based on the above, Complainant urges that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith.
...
2018-07-13 - Case Details
Although each individually own the two separate Trade Marks, the corporate relationship means that they have a common legal interest and therefore a common grievance against the Respondent who they allege has registered and used the Domain Names in bad faith. ...Using the Domain Names to intentionally attract for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s as the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website is bad faith in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy
The fact that the Domain Names and are not now resolving to active websites does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Telstra principles which are laid out in section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. ...
2018-08-23 - Case Details
Instead, the Domain Name appears to have been registered with the intent that confused Internet users searching for the Complainant will be directed to the Respondent’s parked webpage for commercial gain. Such activity does not provide a legitimate interest in that domain name under the Policy. See M.F.H. Fejlesztõ Korlátolt Felelõsségû v. Satoshi Shimoshita,
WIPO Case No. ...Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy provides that bad faith may be shown if “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.” ...
2018-12-26 - Case Details
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. ...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 and 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 the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(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; or
(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 is using the domain name to intentionally attempt 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 the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.
...
2019-02-15 - Case Details
Except for the assertions in the signed and certified Complaint, the Complainant has not provided any evidence of trademark, trade name or company name searches or other investigations to indicate that the Respondent does not have any interest in any mark that includes the term "haglofs" and is not commonly known as "Haglofs". In some circumstances, the omission of that evidence might be fatal to a complaint under the Policy. ...Policy paragraph 4(b) provides that each of the following circumstances is evidence that a registrant has registered and is using a domain name in bad faith:
(i) circumstances indicating that the registrant has registered or 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 the 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) 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.
...
2018-02-21 - Case Details
Thus, the consensus view is that paragraph 4(c) of the Policy shifts the burden of production 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 and 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 the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(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; or
(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 is using the domain name to intentionally attempt 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 the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.
...
2018-03-06 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name to it and contends the following:
- the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark EIYOLAB;
- the Complainant’s trademark should be compared with the disputed domain name having in view particularly its verbal elements since consumers pay more attention to the phonetic similarities when they talk about the name of products;
- the substitution of the letter “a” to the sequence “ei” at the beginning and the adjunction of the letter “s” at the end of the disputed domain name are insufficient to avoid the risk of confusion since the signs are very similar phonetically, both being composed of 3 syllables with one identical [YO] and two syllables similar [EI]/ [A] and [LAB]/ [LABS];
- it is obvious that the Respondent merely copied the prior trademark and domain names of the Complainant and made minor alterations and anyone who sees the disputed domain name is bound to mistake it for a name related to the Complainant;
- the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as the Complainant did not grant the Respondent any license or permission to use its EIYOLAB trademark;
- the Complainant doesn’t know the Respondent, nor has ever been in a relationship with it;
- the Respondent was most likely aware of the Complainant’s mark when registering the disputed domain name and acquired such domain name for the purpose of diverting Internet traffic from the Complainant’s legitimate website to an illegitimate website offering similar goods and services;
- the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial use of the disputed domain name because it uses the corresponding website in order to present goods and services similar to those offered by the Complainant and thus it is diverting the Complainant’s customers on its own website;
- because the Complainant holds trademark and domain name since 2010, it is obvious that the Respondent knew that the registration of the disputed domain name was infringing the Complainant’s trademark rights;
- the disputed domain name was obviously registered in bad faith with the intent to divert the Complainant’s customer base, to tarnish the Complainant’s fame, to harm its online reputation and to disrupt the Complainant’s professional activities;
- the disputed domain name is used in bad faith because it leads to a website of a manufacturer of food supplements whereas the Complainant is a manufacturer of foods supplements.
...Discussion and Findings
According to Article 4(4) of Regulation (EC) No. 2019/517 (“the Regulation”) and in connection with Paragraph B(11)(d)(1) of the ADR Rules, the Panel shall issue a decision granting the remedy requested by the Complainant if the latter proves in the ADR proceeding the following:
(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by national law of a Member State and/ European Union law and; either
(ii) the domain name has been registered by the Respondent without rights or legitimate interest in the name;
(iii) the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.
In the present ADR proceeding, the Complainant has pleaded the cumulative existence of the circumstances provided by the Regulation and ADR Rules (points (i), (ii) and (iii) above). ...
2020-10-28 - Case Details
The Respondent says he replied on November 24, 2020 to merely gauge the interest of the anonymous party and to get a free evaluation of the Respondent’s personal property, the Disputed Domain Name. ...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.
...
2021-03-01 - Case Details
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 WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 2.1. ...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 and 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 the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(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; or
(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 is using the domain name to intentionally attempt 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 the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.
...
2020-07-08 - Case Details
On March 21, 2021, the principal of the Complainant, using his […]@metro-baby.com.au email address,
emailed the contact address for the Respondent indicating an interest in purchasing the disputed domain
name. It appears nothing came of this approach.
5. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to divest the Respondent of the disputed domain name,
the Complainant must demonstrate each of the following:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name, trade mark or service mark in
which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered or subsequently used in bad faith.
...This test is
narrower than and thus different to the question of “likelihood of confusion” under trade mark law which can
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=DAU2002-0001
page 4
require an assessment of the nature of the goods or services protected and those for which any impugned
use is involved, geographical location or timing. ...
2022-07-28 - Case Details
It however provides no details about the identities and
activities of these entities and its relations with them, and does not specify the dates when the circumstances
it describes took place, or indeed their current status or relation to an interest in the disputed domain name.
The Respondent submits no supporting evidence about these allegations either.
...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 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.”
...
2022-08-17 - Case Details
The Complainant states it is clear that by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users and the recipients of its communications, to communicate with the Unauthorized Email Address, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s Registered Marks as to the source or affiliation of communications sent from the Unauthorized Email Address, and in this way, the Respondent has no legitimate interests or rights in the disputed domain name. The Complainant submits that on the balance of probabilities the Respondent does not have a legitimate interest or right in the disputed domain name.
The Complainant also contends that use of the disputed domain name as part of the Unauthorized Email Address to pose as a member of the senior management team of the VIRGIN ORBIT business to try and place orders for goods from third party companies, allegedly with no intention to pay for those goods, is an illegitimate fraudulent use of the disputed domain name carried out for commercial gain.
...
2022-02-09 - Case Details
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” (see section 2.8.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0), the following cumulative requirements will be applied in the specific conditions:
(i) the respondent must actually be offering the goods or services at issue;
(ii) the respondent must use the site to sell only the trademarked goods or services;
(iii) the site must accurately and prominently disclose the registrant’s relationship with the trademark holder; and
(iv) the respondent must not try to “corner the market” in domain names that reflect the trademark.
...The Respondent obviously chose to register the Disputed Domain Name, which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s AMWAY Trademark for the purpose of attracting the Internet users to its competing website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s Trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s website and of the products sold on it as described under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
...
2022-02-08 - Case Details
The Respondent denies awareness of the Complainant before this dispute and denies any intent to create
confusion with the Complainant or disrupt its business.
The Respondent argues that there is nothing illegitimate about buying “generic” domain names that are
usable “for any variety of generic purposes” and reselling them.
...The recent Amadeus proceeding shows that the Respondent is in the business of investing in domain names
for resale, which can represent a legitimate business interest.
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=DIO2021-0001
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/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 6
As the majority observed in the Amadeus decision, “It is well established in decisions under the UDRP, as
reflected in section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third
Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), that ‘… generally speaking, panels have accepted that aggregating and
holding domain names (usually for resale) consisting of acronyms, dictionary words, or common phrases can
be bona fide and is not per se illegitimate under the UDRP.’ ...
2023-01-05 - Case Details
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides some examples without limitation of how a respondent can
demonstrate a right or legitimate interest in a domain name:
(i) before receiving any notice of the dispute, the respondent used or made demonstrable preparations to
use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) the respondent has been commonly known by the domain name; or
(iii) the respondent is 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 at issue.
...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy states that the following circumstances in particular, but without limitation, shall
be evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
(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 documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) 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; or
(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a
competitor; or
page 7
(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent 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.
...
2022-10-21 - Case Details