The Panel finds that the 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 domain name. The Panel further notes that the Respondent has failed to submit a Response to the Complaint filed against him. ...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 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 that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) 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
(iii) Respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to 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 Respondent’s website or location or of a product.
...
2005-11-24 - Case Details
iii) Rights and Legitimate Interests
The second element required by Policy paragraph 4(a) – the registrant has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name – requires the Complainant to prove a negative proposition, which can be particularly difficult.
...Policy paragraph 4(b) provides that each of the following circumstances are deemed evidence that a registrant has registered and used 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 its 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 its website or other on-line location by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.
...
2007-08-28 - Case Details
Therefore, the Complainant considers that the Respondent deliberately registered the Domain Name in bad faith for the purpose of unlawfully diverting consumers to its own website and create confusion among the Internet users with regard the Complainant’s trademarks and newspaper;
- The Respondent has used and currently uses the Domain Name in bad faith as the corresponding website includes a number of links that deviate visitors to other websites with financial contents. ...Consequently, the Complainant considers that the Respondent could never have a real legitimate interest on the Domain Name since the corresponding registration was made on behalf of a company he was working for. ...
2008-05-26 - Case Details
Irrespective of the identity of Respondent they can have no legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
A.3. Registration in Bad Faith
Complainant states that Respondent is currently using the website associated with the disputed domain name as part of what can be described as a "Parking program" whereby the site is used to generate income by seeking adverts and/or "click through's" for clothing ether unrelated to the BARBOUR and BARBOUR INTERNATIONAL brands or unrelated or unauthorized “Barbour” sites. ...The fact that understandably a line or range of goods is sold by the Complainant and marketed under their mark SWAROVSKI will make actual confusion among consumers likely”).
The inclusion of the generic top level domain descriptor “.com” in the disputed domain name does not affect a finding of confusing similarity. ...
2013-05-07 - Case Details
The Guide frequently features various cities and travel destinations of interest to the gay community (along those lines, a copy of one such article and a listing, from the Wayback Machine, of other travel articles from the magazine’s website since as early as May 11, 2000 all appears in Annex 3 to the Complaint), among providing other substantive content. ...Third, the Respondent has utilized the disputed domain name in an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its own website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark SIDETRACK as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website or location or of a product or service on the website or location.
...
2012-07-13 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
6.1 The Policy paragraph 4(a) provides that the Complainant must prove each of the following in order to succeed in an administrative proceeding:
(i) that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and
(iii) that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
6.2 The Policy paragraph 4(c) sets out circumstances which, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved shall demonstrate the Respondent's rights or legitimate interest in the domain names in issue.
6.3 The Policy paragraph 4(b) sets out circumstances which, again 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.
6.4 As stated, the circumstances set out in paragraph 4(b) and 4(c) of the Policy are not exclusionary. ...As to the latter, there is the additional evidence of actual confusion given by Mr Philo [paragraph 5.A.8 above] and the email exchange with Mr Butterworth on November 24, 2010 [paragraph 5.A.17 above]. ...
2010-12-23 - Case Details
Subject to consideration of the potential for conflict with, or trading on, the Complainant’s rights, the Panel
does not agree that someone with rights or legitimate interest in or “Nocodb” could not also
have rights or legitimate interests in or . ...In the
absence of evidence of targeting of the Complainant or its trademark or a real potential for confusion to arise
between the source of goods or services provided by a second, or junior, user and the goods or services
provided by the Complainant, the Complainant cannot claim a monopoly on all and any uses of “noco”.
...
2025-09-08 - Case Details
The Respondent uses the Complainant’s trademark as a domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for
commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the GUTEX mark and
registered the disputed domain name from the very beginning for purposes of subsequent resale including
for a profit.
...Prior decisions under the policy have found that offering a domain name for sale – while certainly not
prohibited – does not, of itself, constitute a legitimate interest under the second element of the Policy. Khadi
& Village Industries Commission v. Michael F Mann, Domain Asset Holdings, LLC, WIPO Case No.
...
2025-05-13 - Case Details
D2005-1068 reasoned that to establish the existence of unregistered trademark
rights in a personal name for the purposes of the Policy, a complainant had to show a sufficient nexus
between the personal name and its use and association in trade and commerce, and formulated a list of
guideline factors to determine whether there was such a nexus, which factors included:
- the extent to which the commercial community associates the individual in question with the company;
- the extent to which the individual is seen as the alter ego and the driving force behind the company;
- the level of personal ownership and control the individual has in the company; and
- the extent to which the individual is linked to any major achievements of such business interests; and
- whether the individual or company has a demonstrable interest in protecting the individual’s name in
commercial use.
The consensus views of UDRP Panelists on the issue of whether a complainant can show UDRP-relevant
rights in a personal name are summarized in section 1.5 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on
Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). ...The Panel also notes section 2.6.2 of the
WIPO Overview 3.0, which discusses that even a general right to legitimate criticism does not necessarily
extend to registering or using a domain name which is identical to a trademark, and even where such a
domain name is used in relation to genuine noncommercial free speech, panels tend to find that this creates
an impermissible risk of user confusion through impersonation, which would not support a finding of rights or
legitimate interests in a domain name.
...
2025-05-21 - Case Details
According to the Complainant, this sophisticated behavior creates confusion for commercial gain. The
page 4
Complainant notes that the subdomain now displays a black screen with the text “Isto
é Negócios”, further proving the Respondent’s specific targeting of the Complainant’s business.
...According
to it, the long-term ownership of a domain name registered without targeting a trademark owner gives rise to
a legitimate interest under established UDRP practice, and its offering for sale or lease through recognized
marketplaces does not, in itself, negate rights or legitimate interests. ...
2026-02-16 - Case Details
None of the websites to which the Domain Name has resolved have ever made any reference
to the Complainant or sought to take advantage of any confusion between the Domain Name and the
Complainant or the HANCOCK PROSPECTING Mark. Furthermore, the fact that the Respondent has
responded to an invitation made in February 2025 by the Complainant to negotiate the sale of the Domain
Name to the Complainant (and has proposed a significant figure) does not prevent a finding of rights or
legitimate interests, noting the use of the Domain Name for the Respondent’s existing business and the
settlement offer being prompted by the Complainant.
The Panel notes that there is clear precedent under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy
(“UDRP”) that the use of domain names for personal e-mail address businesses such as those operated by
the Respondent has been recognized as being, in general, a legitimate interest in a domain name for the
purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy (see e.g., Damstra Technology Pty Ltd (ACN 086 218 742) v.
...
2026-04-01 - Case Details
By using the disputed domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial
gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of
confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of
Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s website or location.
...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). ...
2024-02-23 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that the Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract, for
commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the
Complainant’s trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s
website.
...Where the prior agreement between the Parties does not contain an express prohibition (or express
permission) regarding the registration of domain names, panels under the Policy 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, provided that the
circumstances meet the requirements of the “Oki Data test”. ...
2024-08-19 - Case Details
The Complainant
asserts that this comparison establishes confusing similarity, adding that visual and phonetic similarity is also
present. The Complainant adds that actual confusion has arisen in that there is evidence that some of its
users are being redirected to the Respondent’s website.
...The
Complainant suggests that its strong factual interest in the disputed domain name due to its being printed on
the back of every router sold by the Complainant should be considered when weighing the interests of the
Parties.
...
2024-05-01 - Case Details
There is no information anywhere supporting the claim that the
Complainant’s clients are primarily involved with interactive gaming and nothing on the Complainant’s
Website suggests it has any interest or expertise in that area.
In fact there is no evidence at all that anybody even knows of the Complainant. ...First, the emails in question were directed at an employee of the Complainant not a
customer (the Complainant’s representative referred to confusion of an “end user” in this regard which
seems inaccurate). Second, the evidenced emails reflect that the Respondent somehow involved itself in a
preexisting email chain between the Complainant’s employees, with the Complainant’s genuine emails still
on copy along with those connected to the disputed domain names. ...
2024-05-14 - Case Details
The Complainant avers that the Respondent lacks a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
To the best of the Complainant’s knowledge, the Respondent does not have any trademark rights to the
terms BVLGARI or BULGARI. ...Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 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
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0270.html
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2004/d2004-0360.html
page 7
(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial again, 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.
...
2024-05-22 - Case Details
The Respondent contends that the Complainant’s joint venture company had no interest in the development site until 2008. The Respondent states that the hoardings to which the Complainant refers have only recently been erected and that, in any event, the Complainant appears to use the name “chelseabarracksSW1”. ...Furthermore, the Panel finds that by using the disputed domain names, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of his websites (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy). ...
2015-09-17 - 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 “Lego” and is not commonly known as “Lego”. 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 are 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.
...
2016-08-29 - Case Details
The Complainants have argued that Instagram, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Facebook Inc., and that they have common legal interest in the trademarks reproduced in the disputed domain names in order to file a joint Complaint. In addition, the Complainants have argued that they are the target of common conduct by the Respondent, consisting of a pattern of identically reproducing their respective trademarks in a domain name, which affects their individual rights and interests in a similar fashion. ...D2003-0366), paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy has direct bearing to the present case:
"(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his 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 said website location or of a product or service on that website location."
...
2018-01-08 - Case Details
The Complainant has been involved in a number of advertising campaigns over the years, some of the significant ones being:
(a) assisting Nashua, then one of South Africa’s top performing companies at the time, to launch the first ever telefax machine in South Africa;
(b) in 1990, the Complainant gained notoriety for the advertisement “Beating the Bends” for BMW in response to an advertisement by Mercedes Benz which created national interest before it was temporarily banned;
(c) in January, 1992, with the transition of South Africa from apartheid to a democracy, the Complainant launched the peace campaign and its peace logo went on to become widely known by South Africans;
(d) in January, 1993, it was engaged by the ruling party, the African National Congress, to handle the first democratic election and assisted in the development and communication of its new Constitution at the time;
(e) the Complainant was also involved in other well-known advertising campaigns, namely:
(i) the Arrive Alive campaign to decrease death toll on the road;
(ii) the CANSA campaign to create breast cancer awareness;
(iii) the Nissan campaign to take the dealership into Africa; and
(iv) the BMW Mouse campaign, voted the best advertisement of all time by Ad Focus, 2007.
...Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 domain name in bad faith:
“(i) circumstances indicating that you [the respondent] have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out of pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) you 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.”
...
2018-07-20 - Case Details