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.
...The email states (amongst other things): “Thank you for your interest in the domain name, gamingbible.com. The owner got back to me with their pricing. We are brokering this domain for the owner who has set the list price. gamingbible.com is currently priced at $74,900 USD”.
...
2020-11-20 - 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.
...
2018-01-19 - Case Details
Where a domain name consists of dictionary words forming a common phrase, is used in connection with the generally accepted meaning of such phrase, and has not been registered or used in order to trade off third party trademark rights, this can constitute a legitimate interest for the purposes of the Policy. The question of whether the Respondent may have intended to trade off the Complainant’s rights is further complicated somewhat in the present matter by the descriptive quality of the Complainant’s trademark. ...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 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”.
...
2020-07-27 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that use of the disputed domain name, which identifies itself as “Virgin Airlines”, when it is not connected to the Complainant, and which copies content and contact numbers from a third party website, indicates that the Respondent does not operate a bona fide business from the disputed domain name nor that it has a legitimate interest or right therein, and that the manner of use of the Complainant’s registered VIRGIN Mark and registered VIRGIN ATLANTIC Logo Mark on the Disputed Website is done intentionally to mislead consumers searching for the Complainant’s genuine airline services of a connection to the Complainant and could divert actual and prospective consumers of the Complainant away from the Complainant’s services. ...In that case the Respondent will have used the disputed domain name, to intentionally attempt to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to the relevant website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's VIRGIN trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website or a product offered on the website. ...
2020-06-04 - Case Details
The Complainant further contends that, as the Respondent has no rights or agreements to distribute or market the STAS brand products, the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
The Respondent does not dispute it is no longer authorised or affiliated with the Complainant. ...According to the Complainant:
- In 2014 and 2015, the Complainant requested the Respondent to stop the misuse of the disputed domain name via multiple phone calls between the Respondent and the Complainant;
- In July 2016, the Complainant had an in-person meeting with the Respondent at the Netherlands Headquarters of the Complainant regarding the misuse of the Complainant’s trademark and brand in the United States, which the Complainant says was causing severe confusion in the marketplace;
- In September 2016, the Complainant requested the Respondent again to stop using the disputed domain name, as the Respondent was portraying himself as the Complainant;
- The Complainant reached out several times by telephone in 2016 and 2017 to resolve the issue regarding the disputed domain name;
- On September 26, 2017, the Complainant again reminded the Respondent by email that he has agreed to stop misusing the disputed domain name;
- On October 4, 2017, the Complainant again reminded the Respondent of his misuse of the disputed domain;
- On April 16, 2018 the Complainant again sent a reminder to the Respondent regarding the disputed domain name; and
- At the end of 2020, the Complainant made an offer to purchase the disputed domain from the Respondent in an effort to settle the matter amicably. ...
2021-03-01 - Case Details
The Respondent cannot have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. The primary aim of the Respondent is to sell or transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant for valuable consideration.
...The Panel is of the view that such an attempt on the part of the Respondent is to create confusion and to cash on/ride over the name, goodwill and reputation of the Complainant.
The Panel observes that the Respondent is in no way related to the Complainant or its business activities – the Respondent is not an agent of the Complainant, nor does he carry out activities for the Complainant. ...
2021-02-12 - Case Details
In light of the Complainant’s feeble evidence of use and reputation, unless there is persuasive evidence that the Disputed Domain Name was selected opportunistically by the Respondent to create confusion and exploit the Complainant’s mark – such as it is, the Panel would conclude that the Respondent has a legitimate interest in using the Disputed Domain Name, as it is of descriptive English words, for advertising or other commercial purposes. ...
2020-07-21 - Case Details
The Respondent has not provided any documentary evidence to substantiate these assertions beyond a testimonial that the Respondent claims demonstrates his interest in exploring genetic risk factors.
Notwithstanding the Respondent’s submissions to the contrary, the Panel considers that the Respondent’s assertions of this intention, even in the form of an Affidavit, are not sufficient (see AIB-Vincotte Belgium ASBL, AIB-Vincotte USA Inc....The Panel considers that by using the Disputed 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 Trade Mark.
The Additional Disputed Domain Name resolves to a parking page. ...
2019-10-01 - Case Details
The disputed domain names were registered to block and disrupt the Complainant in accordance with paragraphs 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 of the IEDR Policy. The Registrant has also attempted to create confusion with the Complainant’s protected identifier in accordance with paragraph 2.1.4 of the IEDR Policy.
...The use of a common word as a domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services constitutes a legitimate interest.
The Complainant has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish bad faith.
6. Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 1.1 of the IEDR Policy, the Complainant is required to prove that:
- the disputed domain names are identical or misleadingly similar to a protected identifier in which the Complainant has rights;
- the Registrant has no rights in law or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and
- the disputed domain names have been registered or are being used in bad faith.
...
2019-11-20 - Case Details
The Respondent may establish a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names by demonstrating
in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy any of the following circumstances, in particular but without
limitation:
“(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the
domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of
goods or services; or
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2005/d2005-0037.html
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2003/d2003-0709.html
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0713.html
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 7
(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain
name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for
commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at
issue.”
...Registered and Used 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:
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 8
(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 its documented out-of-pocket costs directly
related to the domain name; or
(ii) [the respondent has] registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the
trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that
[the respondent has] engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) [the respondent has] registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the
business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for
commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent’s] website or other 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 [the respondent’s]
website or location.”
...
2022-06-29 - 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. ...The Panel accepts that the Complainant must show that the Respondent does not have any right or
legitimate interest in the disputed domain name; it is not sufficient for the Complainant to establish a “better”
claim.
...
2022-04-28 - Case Details
UDRP jurisprudence recognises that the use of a domain name for fair use such as noncommercial free speech would in principle support a respondent’s claim to a legitimate interest under the Policy. See section 2.6 of WIPO Overview 3.0 . However, as explained in section 2.6.1 of WIPO Overview 3.0 , the criticism must be genuine. ...Furthermore, even if a website is considered to be a genuine criticism site, as explained in section 2.6.2 of WIPO Overview 3.0, panels find that a general right to legitimate criticism does not necessarily extend to registering or using a domain name identical to a trade mark (i.e., ) as this creates an impermissible risk of user confusion through impersonation.
In this case, the Panel considers that the disputed domain name is virtually identical to the Complainant’s trade mark because it merely adds the word “law”, which describes the Complainant’s area of activity. ...
2021-06-11 - Case Details
In the corresponding emails sent to third parties purportedly from Complainants, the sender expressed an interest in ordering products, pretended he wanted to establish a commercial relationship, accepted a subsequent offer made by the mislead third-party recipient and sent a false purchase order.
...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances, “in particular but without limitation”, are evidence of the registration and use of the Domain Names in “bad faith”:
(i) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or has acquired the Domain Names primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Domain Names 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 its documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Domain Names; or
(ii) that 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 Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Names primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) that by using the Domain Names, 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.
...
2021-12-23 - Case Details
On the assumption that it has shown that it has rights in the above marks,
the Complainant then argues that the disputed domain names are very similar
or identical, and that the likelihood of confusion is very great. In this regard,
the Complainant notes that it is common for an Internet searcher to use the
abbreviation of the institution for which they are searching, eg University
of Wisconsin, and, in the case of the different campuses to add the abbreviation
for those particular places, eg "RF" for River Falls.
2. ...It argues further that the Respondent
cannot point to any legitimate interest in the domain names other than to sell
them. It notes further that it received no answer to a letter dated November
20, 2001 that was sent to the First Respondent (Annex E) requesting transfer
of the domain names. ...
2003-01-17 - Case Details
The Center responded to this email on February 5, 2002, stating:
"As the Complainant has indicated in its Complaint a link between the Registrants of the two disputed domain names, the Center is going to consider it as a single Administrative Proceeding."
3.11 The Panel has already noted that some confusion had existed up to this point in the Administrative Proceeding regarding the disputed domain names and their registrants. ...The Complainant’s contentions in the Complaint
5.1 The Complaint asserts that each of the elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied.
5.2 In reference to the element in paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complainant alleges that and are directly identical and confusingly similar to the Victory Team mark.
5.3 In reference to the element in paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the Complainant alleges that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name in dispute because, inter alia:
a) the Respondents have shown that they neither have any activities nor any business associated to these registrations;
b) the Respondents have confirmed that they bought these domain names only with the purpose of selling them;
c) at its first contact with the Respondents on May 10, 2000, the Respondents had no web pages at all under these names; and
d) the Respondents have pointed out that they represent a non-existent "Belly Dancer Association" and further states that they are "The real Victory Team".
5.4 In reference to the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the Complainant alleges that the Respondents have proven their bad faith by re-directing the domain names in dispute to a competitor of the Complainant, the Italian team Jolly Motor. ...
2002-03-22 - Case Details
The original intention to open a site for lost pets
has been changed to an intention to cater for certain issues of interest
to teenagers, including pet care. Respondent does not sell goods or services
that impinge on the Complainants’ mark in the relevant classes of registration,
and usage by Respondent does not imply the "singer Tarkan".
5.13. ...Bad faith may be found under Paragraph 4(b)(iv) if Respondent has
intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users
to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainants’
mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website
or of a product or service thereon. ...
2002-06-11 - Case Details
The Respondent submits that it has used the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and, therefore, has a legitimate interest in these domain names. It denies having registered and used the domain names in bad faith.
6. ...Consequently, by using the domain name, the Respondent intentionally attempts to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website.
...
2004-03-19 - Case Details
In fact, given the widespread fame of the Complainant’s CELGENE mark, particularly within the pharmaceutical sector, the addition of the word “pharma” has the effect of heightening consumer’s confusion that this domain name may be associated or affiliated with the Complainant and its CELGENE trademark. ...However, the Panel notes that the Respondent has not provided evidence of circumstances of the type specified in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or evidence of any other circumstances giving rise to a right to or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. The Panel further notes that the Respondent has failed to submit a Response to the Complaint filed against him. ...
2013-09-20 - Case Details
Article 159(1) of the Law establishes that a fiduciary is under an obligation of loyalty to his principal, while Schedule 3 confirms that fiduciary duties include the duties of loyalty, avoiding conflicts of interest, confidentiality, and acting with care, skill and diligence. Complainant contends that by retaining the Domain Name for personal use which tarnishes Complainant’s registered trademark, Respondent has acted contrary to the duties owed to Complainant. ...Included on this list are the circumstances that the domain name was registered “primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor”, and “intentionally …creating a likelihood of confusion” (Policy paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and (iv)). Here, Respondent’s redirection and misuse of the Domain Name appears calculated to disrupt the business of his former employer and to cause confusion. ...
2015-03-10 - Case Details
The Respondent reiterates that it registered the disputed domain name to expand its own business, not to block the Complainant or create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s marks.
The Complainant is guilty of reverse domain name hijacking (“RDNH”). ...If the respondent fails to come forward with such appropriate allegations or evidence, a complainant is generally deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP […] If the respondent does come forward with some allegations or evidence of relevant rights or legitimate interest, the panel then weighs all the evidence, with the burden of proof always remaining on the complainant.”
...
2015-06-15 - Case Details