Complainant’s evidence of use in the Complaint as amended, also supports Complainant’s contention that
Respondent cannot claim prior rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as the
CARREFOUR Mark precedes the registration of the disputed domain name by decades. ...case=D2015-0914
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-1487.html
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 6
Respondent is located, and decades of use of the CARREFOUR Mark prior to Respondent’s registration of
the disputed domain name on June 21, 2022, the configuration of the disputed domain name in a manner
which triggers security systems designed to identify and protect against websites that promote phishing and
malware distribution schemes and blocks access to a website associated with the disputed domain name,
the ultimate effect of any use of the disputed domain name will be to cause confusion with Complainant or
worse, subject unprotected consumers seeking its products or services to such illegal schemes and tarnish
Complainant’s CARREFOUR Mark. ...
2022-09-15 - Case Details
The Complainant requests for transfer of the disputed domain name on the grounds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark, and the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest to use its mark in the disputed domain name. The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith with an intent to deceive the public and to gain from the reputation and goodwill associated with its trademark.
...It is therefore apparent, from the circumstances discussed, that the Respondent, knew or ought to have known of the Complainant’s mark and has used it in the disputed domain name with an intent to create confusion in the minds of Internet users. Such use of the disputed domain name amounts to misleading people who are interested in the Complainant’s, products, service and business, which is recognized as bad faith registration and use under the Policy.
...
2021-06-25 - Case Details
This test is narrower than and thus different to the question of “likelihood of confusion” under trademark law. Therefore, questions such as the scope of the trademark rights, the geographical location of the respective parties and other considerations that may be relevant to an assessment of infringement under trademark law are not relevant at this stage. ...While the Respondent makes a number of assertions about “Bruno’s” relationship to the Complainant, these are all second hand statements as there is no statement from “Bruno” himself or other evidence objectively indicating his authority from the Complainant.
In some cases, a right or legitimate interest can arise in a domain name which resembles a trademark where the domain name is used in connection with some goods or services associated with or an adjunct to the goods or services provided by the trademark owner. ...
2022-02-16 - Case Details
A web form invites the submission of personal data in order to obtain a quotation for life insurance or
to express an interest in retirement savings.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
In summary, the Complainant contends as follows:
Identical or confusingly similar
The disputed domain name reproduces the AXA trademark identically, which has no particular meaning, and
is well-known and highly distinctive. ...case=D2018-2042
page 6
(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 website or location or of a product or
service on your website or location.”
...
2023-02-24 - Case Details
In the present case, the Complainant submits that the Respondent lacks any right or legitimate interest in the
disputed domain name, that the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use
any of its trademarks or to register a domain name incorporating its IQOS trademark (or a domain name
which will be associated with this trademark).
...As to the use in bad faith, the Complainant contends, among others, that “[i]t is also evident from the
Respondent’s use of the [d]isputed [d]omain [n]ame that the Respondent registered and used the [d]isputed
[d]omain [n]ame with the intention to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the website by creating a
likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s registered IQOS trademark as to the source, sponsorship,
affiliation, or endorsement of its website or location or of a product or service on its website or location, which
constitutes registration and use in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy” and provides further
elaboration of its contentions.
...
2023-02-07 - Case Details
It contends
that, while the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.ltd” should be disregarded for the purpose of
page 4
comparison, it nevertheless enhances the likelihood of confusion in view of the Complainant’s company
name, “Altron Limited”.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed
domain name. ...The Complainant submits that the Respondent’s current uses of the disputed domain name indicate that it
has little interest in activating any website that might be used for any genuine business and that it is merely
profiting commercially from the association between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s
trademark. ...
2023-02-17 - 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 Names 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 …”.
...
2021-12-02 - 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.
...
2022-01-26 - Case Details
AT&T then assigned all of its right,
title and interest within the United States in the BELL marks to seven Regional
Bell Operating Companies established in connection with divestiture. ...Indeed, Respondent’s intentional attempts to attract consumers to his website
for commercial gain, 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 is evidence
of registration and use in bad faith according to the Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv).
...
2003-08-07 - Case Details
With regard to whether use of a domain name to conduct PPC advertising constitutes a legitimate interest, previous panels have recognized that the use of a domain name to host a page comprising PPC links would be permissible – and therefore consistent with respondent rights or legitimate interests under the UDRP – where the domain name consists of an actual dictionary word(s) or phrase and is used to host PPC links genuinely related to the dictionary meaning of the word(s) or phrase comprising the domain name, and not to trade off the complainant’s (or its competitor’s) trademark.”
In the present case, the Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name may have established a legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name. The Panel notes, though, that the website to which the Disputed Domain Name resolves did provide, at some point in time after the Complainant had registered its GREEN ROADS trademark, hyperlinks to the websites to other third party websites, including those of the Complainant’s competitors. ...
2019-01-30 - Case Details
Filing a witness statement without a corresponding
pleading creates confusion and disrupts the orderly progression of the case. It's akin to presenting evidence
before establishing the foundation for its relevance.
...According to the
Respondent “[f]iling a witness statement without a corresponding pleading creates confusion and disrupts the
orderly progression of the case”, and also “undermines the principles of fairness, transparency, and
efficiency”.
...
2024-03-05 - Case Details
The associated website accurately displays the Respondent’s relationship with the Complainant as a distributor of SNS products and the Respondent has taken steps to dispel confusion. The assertion that the Respondent has attempted to corner the market is nonsensical.
The disputed domain name was not registered and is not being used in bad faith. ...The fourth circumstance is as follows:
(iv) by using the domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's name or mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of that website or location or of a product or service on that website or location.
...
2020-07-09 - Case Details
There is some force in the potential for confusion. On the other hand, it is plain that the First Complainant is
under the control of the Second Complainant. ...However, that was not because
of any finding that the Respondent had rights or a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name or that it
was obvious that the Complaint must fail even before it was filed. ...
2022-11-17 - Case Details
The Panel held
that the Corporation named as Respondent, although claiming that it was not
properly before the Panel because it no longer had an interest in the Domain
Name in question, was a legitimate Respondent and an order could be made against
it, even though it may have signed a document selling its rights in the Domain
Name. ...This Panel also accepts the facts as set out in para. 4.6
above.
6.10The test for determining
confusing similarity is one of overall impression of confusion in the mind of
the person making the decision, deciding it as a "jury question",
with the additional requirement that there be a real danger of confusion. ...
2001-12-10 - Case Details
In addition, the Complainant states that the Respondent creates and exploits a likelihood of confusion with the trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of his website. Thus, capitalizing on the value of Complainant’s trademark, and such use of the Domain Name constitutes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name. ...According to the Complainant, the Respondent does not fulfil the conditions set out according to the so-called “Oki Data Test”, which means that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Name. In addition, the Complainant states that the intent of bad faith of the Respondent is clearly shown.
...
2015-04-07 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant contends that Respondent’s domain name DRAWTITE.COM "is identical to Complainant’s well-known trademark DRAWTITE and confusingly similar to the variations of the trademark DRAW TITE and DRAW-TITE so as to be likely to cause consumer confusion." Complaint, Par. 8(a). Complainant asserts it has superior rights in these marks, as their "original user," and particularly as they relate to towing products. ...Nevertheless, Respondent has presented competent proof that it has a "right or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name." Under the UDRP Policy,
[a]ny of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based upon its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate [the domain name holder’s] rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii):
(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 non-commercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
...
2000-03-20 - Case Details
Therefore, given the apparent inclusive nature of the Policy, whether the Complainant has rights to an unregistered mark and hence a protectable interest under the Policy, lies with national trademark law that governs the Respondent’s actions that are the subject of the Complaint. ...As evidence of this, one need turn no further than to §43 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §1125(a)) which states, in pertinent part: “Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof … (A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person … shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.”
...
2006-05-05 - Case Details
Complainant further submits that Respondent's registration of the domain name in dispute was done in bad faith because it had no legitimate right or business interest in any COSTCO formative domain name. Respondent's only conceivable business purposes in registering the domain name in dispute was to profit from the diversion of Internet users to its own retail web site unrelated to Costco.
...Respondent is using the confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to Respondent's web site for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademark as to source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent's web site constituting bad faith use under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
...
2009-08-31 - Case Details
However: 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. This has been found to occur: shortly before or after a publicized merger between companies, but before any new trademark rights in the combined entity have arisen; or when the respondent (e.g., as a former employee or business partner, or other informed source) seeks to take advantage of any rights that may arise from the complainant's enterprises; or where the potential mark in question is the subject of substantial media attention (e.g., in connection with a widely anticipated product or service launch) of which the respondent is aware, and before the complainant is able to obtain registration of an applied-for trademark, the respondent registers the domain name in order to take advantage of the complainant's likely rights in that mark. ...The Complainant complains that the Respondent’s sale price for the Domain Name shot up steeply when the Complainant expressed an interest in purchasing it, but there is no evidence to suggest that that was anything other than a seller seeking to obtain the best possible price for her lawfully held asset. ...
2011-07-14 - Case Details
D2009-0776, is authority for the proposition that:
“According to the most important case law, but also to the rules of the single national laws, the registration of a domain name should, above all, avoid confusion with a prior trademark, in particular when that trademark is obviously notorious through the use of Internet search engines like the most popular ones, Google or Yahoo.”
5.8 So far as bad faith use is concerned the Complainant claims that the Domain Names are being used to divert traffic to the webpages operated by the Respondent to sell the Respondent’s products in such a manner as falls within the scope of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
...No doubt he was well known to many at that time, particularly those with an interest in skiing and/or winter sports. However, there is virtually no evidence before the Panel in this case that the fame of his business activities was so great that someone in the United States engaged in the sale of T-shirts of the sort promoted by the Respondent would have been likely to be aware at that time of Mr. ...
2013-03-28 - Case Details