If the respondent does come forward with evidence of relevant right or legitimate interest, the panel weighs all the evidence, with the burden of proof always remaining on the complainant.
...The Domain Names are likely to confuse Internet users trying to find the Complainant’s official website. Such confusion will inevitably result due to the misspellings of the Trade Mark as the most prominent element of the Domain Names, with a clear intention on the part of the Respondent to attract for commercial gain by confusing and misleading Internet users into believing that the Websites are authorised or endorsed by the Complainant.
...
2019-07-02 - Case Details
Registered and Used in Bad Faith
According to paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, shall be evidence of registration and use in bad faith:
(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent 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 that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your 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 its 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 web site or location or of a product or service on its web site or location.
...On the other hand, a respondent’s passive holding of a domain name, in the absence of a right to, or legitimate interest in said domain name, can constitute bad faith. In such scenario, panels have to analyze the circumstances of each case to determine whether or not such passive holding constitutes bad faith (see Telstra Corporation v Nuclear Marshmallows,
WIPO Case No. ...
2020-01-22 - Case Details
In the present case, the Panel takes into account the circumstances of the proceeding, including, but not
limited to:
(i) the fact that the Complainant, a French business entity, does not appear to be able to communicate in
Russian, and therefore, if the Complainant was required to have the documents translated into Russian, the
proceeding would be unduly delayed, and the Complainant would have to incur substantial expenses for
translation;
(ii) the Disputed Domain Names contain English word, i.e., “clients”, this suggests that the Respondent has
knowledge of the English language and will be able to communicate in English;
(iii) the Respondent did not object for English to be the language of the proceeding and did not submit a
response in either English or Russian.
Therefore, 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.
...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.”
...
2022-07-08 - 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.
...
2022-02-08 - Case Details
Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy proscribes the following non-exhaustive circumstances as evidence of bad faith
registration and use of the disputed domain names:
(i) Circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or Respondent has acquired the disputed
domain names primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the disputed
domain name registrations to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark to a competitor of that
Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of Respondent’s documented out of pocket costs
directly related to the disputed domain names;
(ii) Respondent has registered the disputed domain names in order to prevent the owner of the trademark
from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain names, provided that Respondent has engaged in
a pattern of such conduct;
(iii) Respondent has registered the disputed domain names primarily for the purpose of disrupting the
business of a competitor;
(iv) By using the disputed domain names, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for
commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s websites or other online locations, by creating a
likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or
endorsement of Respondent’s websites or locations or of a product or service on Respondent’s
websites or locations.
...D2006-0696 (the use of a
proxy registration service to avoid disclosing the identity of the real party in interest is also consistent with an
inference of bad faith when combined with other evidence of evasive, illegal, or irresponsible conduct).
...
2022-11-21 - Case Details
It should be axiomatic that a respondent has a
legitimate interest in a domain name that is its own name, and has been registered for the past seventeen
(17) years.”
...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Policy, paragraph 4(b), furnishes a non-exhaustive list of circumstances that “shall be evidence of the
registration and use of a domain name in bad faith”, including the following (in which “you” refers to the
registrant of the domain name):
“(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.”
...
2022-06-21 - Case Details
Hence, the Complainant contends that allowing a third party
to use the Trademark KHADI would cause a great deal of confusion and deception amongst the
Complainant’s patrons, members of trade, consumers, and public at large. ...It is inconceivable that anyone having legitimate interest over a
domain name would keep the domain name inactive even after a duration of almost two years. ...
2022-08-09 - 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 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.
...
2022-01-27 - Case Details
For the purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(iii), 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 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 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.
5.3 It may be mentioned that circumstances specified in sub-paragraphs (i), (ii), and (iii) of paragraph 4(a) deal with the intention or purpose of domain name registration, the four circumstances in paragraph 4(b) are illustrative, and the existence of any of them, will be an instance of "registration and use of a domain name in bad faith".
5.4 Paragraph 4(c) of the Uniform Policy sets out circumstances, in particular but without limitation, which, if found by the Administrative Panel to be proved, demonstrate the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii). ...The Complainant has stated that the impugned domain names being variants of the combination of two extremely famous trademarks, TATA and AMEX, it is but evident that the Respondent can have no legitimate interest in such domain names. No other grounds establishing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names have been mentioned in the Complaint.
7.5 The Administrative Panel finds that the Complaint has been filed by Tata Sons Limited on behalf of and under the authority of Tata Finance Amex Limited and American Express International Inc. ...
2001-09-28 - Case Details
The Respondent submits that there has
been no use of the domain name in dispute to date and therefore there could
not be a likelihood of confusion (Zuffa LLC v. LGRE, WIPO
Case No. D2001-0458, Annex 6 to the Response). The Respondent submits that
inference of future activities cannot possibly be used to satisfy Complainant's
burden of proof of bad faith since the alleged activities haven’t happened yet
(M.T.C. ...The above conclusion is
of course of no precedential value should the Respondent wish to attack the
validity of the trademark UNIX in another proceeding.
6.2The second matter
which the Complainant must prove is that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interest in the domain name in dispute. The Respondent submits that the Respondent's
demonstrated preparation to use the domain name in dispute is permitted by the
Complainant's Trademark License Agreement (see Complaint Annex 3, Schedules
5 of the "Trademark Usage Guide", s.1.3). ...
2002-07-09 - Case Details
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. ...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. ...
2001-11-26 - Case Details
The Procedural Order No. 1 also invited the individual who registered the Disputed Domain Name
to forward the Complaint, the annexes, and the Notification of Complaint to ТОВ “Рейлтім” (Railteam LLC), if
he considers that this party has an interest in the proceedings. The Decision due date was extended to July
7, 2026. On July 1, 2026, the Complainant submitted a response to the Procedural Order No. 1. ...According to the Respondent, these differences eliminate any realistic likelihood of consumer confusion and
further support the independent and legitimate use of the designation by the Respondent.
...
2026-08-04 - Case Details
(5) The Respondents have registered the disputed domain names in bad faith by intentionally adopting the disputed domain names that fully incorporate the Complainant's well-known DELTA DENTAL marks, which is likely to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's DELTA DENTAL marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the disputed domain names...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 names. The Panel further notes that the Respondent has failed to submit a Response to the Complaint filed against it. ...
2014-06-24 - Case Details
Section 3.2: That in the event that they elect to transfer the domain name to the third party, disable the use of the domain name or otherwise agree that such name will not be used for any purpose during the registration period, the members agree to relinquish all right, title and/or interest in and to the domain name with or without prior notice from them".
Respondent states further that their Trademark Policy, which is conspicuously linked from the southern masthead of their website’s hompage under "Trademark Policy", informs trademark holders of their policies and provides an easy method to contact Namezero in connection with a trademark dispute.
...- By Respondent using the domain name, they are intentionally performing actions to attract, for financial gain, Internet users to the Website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the affiliation and sponsorship of the Website and the products and services included in the Website under the domain name "telecompersonal.com"
- The Domain Names were registered primarily for the purpose of selling it to the Complainant, since some informal contacts have been occurring between the Respondent's member and the Complainant where the domains "telecompersonal.com", and "telecompersonal.net"were available for sale at US$5,000 each.
...
2001-04-10 - Case Details
Sixth, it follows that the Complainant is not using the domain name in issue to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark.
6. The Disputed Facts
6.1 The Complainant seeks to link the Respondent to a Mr Dennis Willardt Zewillis, who was found by the Danish Eastern High Court in a Judgment delivered on November 26, 1999, to have registered more than 330 domain names, the majority of which incorporated well known Danish company names or trademarks. ...In that case, the Respondent had been trading using the BOSCO name and mark for nearly 4 years and it was held that the Respondent had rights and a legitimate interest in the domain name by virtue of that trading. Here, there has been no use by the Respondent of the domain name in issue and delay by the Complainant does not arise for consideration. ...
2000-11-15 - Case Details
China Holding
Company, Incorporated) where the Panel found that the Respondent in that
case was not connected to the domain name at issue in the case either through
its name or its business, something that proved a lack of legitimate interest.
Complainant adds that there is no connection between Complainant and Respondent and that it is also clear that no license or other authorization has been given by Complainant to use the trademark "SEB." ...It has in fact been well established in earlier cases that the addition of such a notion does not change the likelihood of confusion with a trademark.
The Panel thus finds it to be established that the domain name at issue is confusingly similar to Complainant´s trademark. ...
2003-02-17 - Case Details
The Respondent admits that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademarks. He claims a legitimate interest in respect of the domain name because it is descriptive, consisting of three English words which describe the service the Respondent offers. ...iv) By using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other on-line locations, 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."
...
2000-03-30 - Case Details
The Respondent's wwfshop.com and iwwf.com domain names are not identical to the WWF marks of the Complainant, nor [save as regards US 2,131,847] on the face of it are they confusingly similar. The Complainant has produced no evidence of confusion. However, the Respondent's use of the wwfshop.com domain name in the form of the Respondent's website [Annex G to the Complaint] is clearly calculated to be associated with the Complainant's mark and - subject to para. 10.4 below - it follows is confusingly similar to the Complainant's WWF mark. ...Rights or Legitimate Interests
10.6 Para. 4c of the Policy identifies circumstances which, in particular, but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all the evidence presented, shall demonstrate the Respondent's rights or legitimate interest for the purpose of para. 4a(ii). Those circumstances are that;
(i) before any notice to the Respondent of the dispute, the Respondent's use of or demonstrable preparations to use the domain name or a domain name corresponding to the domain name, in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) the Respondent (as an individual, business or other organisation) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if it has acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or
(iii) the Respondent is 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.
10.7 On February 16, 2000, within 3 days of registering the domain names in issue on February 13, 2000, the Respondent wrote to the Complainant in the following terms [Annex E]:
"Dear Sirs,
I would like to inform you that I reserved the following domain names which might be interesting for your type of business:
h iwwf.com
great for WWF interactivity or wwfbroadcasts
h wwfshop.com
commercial better alternative to for example wwfshopzone.com
If you would like more information on obtaining one of these names, they are being auctioned at www.greatdomains.com.
...
2000-06-23 - Case Details
Han's assertions are taken at face value, it is clear that:
(a) at the time that Respondent registered the Domain Name, Respondent knew that TOEIC was a famous trademark used in association with an internationally used English examination; and
(b) Respondent intended to use the Domain Name for websites that would be of interest to people in Korea who are seeking to learn English.
6.14 Hence, Respondent's stated intention was to use for its own commercial gain a domain name that was identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark with full knowledge that the Complainant's mark was famous in Korea and used by Complainant in association with a service that was similar to the one that Respondent intended to offer in connection with the domain name. ...That conclusion is unavoidable even though Respondent may have registered the Domain Name for one bad faith purpose and is now using the Domain Name for a different bad faith purpose.
6.29 The Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith because either:
(a) Respondent registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling or otherwise transferring the Domain Name to Complainant for valuable consideration in excess of Respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name; or
(b) Respondent:
(i) registered the Domain Name for the purpose of establishing a website and attracting Internet users to that website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademark TOEIC as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website or of a product or service on the website, and
(ii) is maintaining the Domain Name registration for the purpose of selling the Domain Name to Complainant for valuable consideration in excess of Respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name.
7. ...
2000-04-07 - Case Details
The Complainant has failed to establish that the Respondent lacks a legitimate right or interest in the disputed domain names.
The requirements of 4(a)(ii) of the Policy are not satisfied and consequently the Panel finds in favour of the Respondent on the second element of the Policy.
...Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides a non-exhaustive list of 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 the Respondent has registered or acquired the domain names primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain names 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 names; or
(ii) the Respondent has registered the domain names 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 registered the domain names primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain names, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent's 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 the Respondent's web site or location or of a product or service on the Respondent's web site or location.
...
2009-03-10 - Case Details