The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights over the INTEL trademark and that the Respondent has no trademark registration or other right granting a legitimate interest justifying use of the Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain name. The Complainant submits that it would be impossible for the Respondent to have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in light of the fact that the Complainant’s trademark is famous as noted in the Factual Background section above. ...The Complainant submits that the Respondent has thereby registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith, because the Respondent is intentionally diverting the traffic to other online locations for commercial gain through confusion as to the source, affiliation or endorsement of the website, specifically the Respondent’s use of the Complainant’s INTEL trademark in different links on its website such as “Intel 13”, “Intel Chips”, and “Intel video driver”.
...
2012-07-12 - Case Details
Complainant argues that Respondent’s conduct falls within paragraph 4b)iv) of the Policy in that he is using the domain name in a way directed to attempting to attract, for financial benefit, users of the Internet to his website or any other site, creating the risk of confusion with Complainant’s trademark GENCAT as to source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement.
...These facts lead the Panel to infer that Respondent’s conduct falls within Paragraph 4b)iv) of the Policy, in that by using the domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a different on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source of Respondent’s Web site or location or of a product on Respondent’s Web site or location, and therefore concludes that is being used in bad faith.
...
2003-04-23 - Case Details
Thus, the consensus view is that paragraph 4(c) shifts the burden 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. ...Where a respondent registers a domain name consisting of “dictionary” terms because the respondent has a good faith belief that the domain name's value derives from its generic or descriptive qualities, the use of the domain name consistent with such good faith belief may establish a legitimate interest. See Mobile Communication Service Inc. v. WebReg, RN,
WIPO Case No. D2005-1304. But the domain name must have been registered because of, and any use consistent with, its attraction as a dictionary word or descriptive term, and not because of any value corresponding to a trademark. ...
2008-11-20 - Case Details
Should I stop saying or using the word ‘mail’ for fear that AOL persecute me for not having ‘... rights or legitimate interest to the word MAIL,’ because of AOL's ‘You've got mail?’
Dolphin@Heart wants nothing more than to be fairly compensated for expenses it incurred, directly and indirectly, for the domains it registered. ...Among these circumstances are (1) that the domain name has been registered or acquired by a respondent "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 [respondent’s] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name" (id., para. 4(b)(i)); (2) that a 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" (id., para. 4(b)(ii)), and (3) that a respondent "by using the domain name, … [has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [its] 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 [respondent’s] web site or location of a product or service on [its] web site or location" (id., para. 4(b)(iv)).
...
2000-09-05 - Case Details
The Respondent contends that in view of its United States service mark registration for SPEEDUP it has a clear legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. The service mark in question was filed on March 22, 2000, and registered on December 16, 2003, under no 76007496 covering: “Computer services, namely providing computational services with the receipt and processing of data supplied and the transmission of results via global computer and telecommunications networks”.
...Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a non-exhaustive list of circumstances which for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy would, if the Panel finds them to be present, constitute evidence of bad faith registration and use:
(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 that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) registration of 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 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.
...
2004-06-16 - Case Details
Also on that date, Nicky Hilton sent an email to the EasyGroup’s founder:
“Subject: Re: Re Stelmar
I am an interested party.
I and a group of friends have a vested interest in various companies and we wish to expose specific details and inform anyone who cares to listen to what we have to say.
...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 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.
...
2005-11-16 - Case Details
The word “missguided” is plainly the dominant and distinctive element. The potential likelihood of confusion is not diminished by the change in case or font.
On this basis, the first disputed domain name is identical to the Complainants’ CTM for the MISSGUIDED word mark. ...In broad summary, in relation to paragraph 4(c)(i), the Complainants contend that the Respondent has no real interest in the disputed domain names, has never intended to trade in good faith in adult sex toys, and is really some sort of catspaw for Boohoo and seeking to besmirch the Complainants’ business and derail its international expansion by associating the Complainants’ trade mark with adult sex toys.
...
2013-11-15 - Case Details
Policy, paragraph 4(c))
Complainant has argued that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest because: (1) Complainant has no business relationship with Respondent, and has never authorized Respondent to make use of its trademark in the disputed domain name; (2) Respondent has not used the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to notice of the dispute, with most use either in connection with a pay-per-click parking site or a landing page with contact information; (3) Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name, and has concealed his identity through a privacy service; (4) Respondent has not made a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers, and (5) Respondent has used the disputed domain name in an attempt to extract payment from Complainant. ...These are “(i) circumstances indicating that [the respondent has] registered or [the respondent 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 [the respondent’s] 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] 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.”
...
2013-05-01 - Case Details
case=D2006-0964
page 7
(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.
...In the view of the Panel that information should
have alerted the Complainant and its advisers to the fact that there were multiple businesses that could
legitimately have an interest in the Disputed Domain Name and that absent any evidence of targeting
directed at the Complainant the Complaint was not likely to succeed. ...
2025-08-11 - Case Details
The Respondent also
denies that the disputed domain name was registered to prevent the Complainant from using it, or to disrupt
the Complainant’s business. It also denies any bad faith use through confusion or diversion of Internet
users. The Respondent states that it was unaware of the Complainant and merely registered a domain
name that had become publicly available. ...Even assuming that “Artemide” has an independent mythological and linguistic meaning in Italian and is used
as a personal name and as the name of various businesses and cultural organizations in Italy, this does not
in itself establish that the Respondent has a legitimate interest in the corresponding “.nl” domain name. The
relevant question remains whether, in the circumstances of the case and from the perspective of the Dutch
Internet public, the Respondent’s registration and use were genuinely based on the disputed domain name’s
independent meaning rather than on the Complainant’s Trademark.
...
2026-08-06 - Case Details
Nothing in the record suggests
the Respondent sought to attract Internet users by creating confusion with the Complainant's mark, to disrupt
the Complainant's business, or to engage in any of the conduct described in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy.
...It is likely
well known in South Africa and adjoining counties, particularly to persons with an interest in insurance.
There is however no credible basis in the evidence for a claim to worldwide fame of the order that would
attract the Article 6bis doctrine or the case law treating well-known marks as obviously recognisable to
respondents worldwide.
...
2026-05-27 - Case Details
In the absence of sufficient evidence to show that the Complainant’s trademarks are in common use by third
parties or have become generic, a legitimate interest is not established by using confusingly similar domain
names to divert traffic to competing websites.
...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.
...
2026-03-02 - Case Details
The Respondent also submits that it is legitimate to operate a business model of registering and selling
generic domain names. It adds that, once a right or legitimate interest in such a domain name has been
established, then an offer to sell that domain name is not evidence of bad faith.
...The disputed domain
name does not appear at any time to have resolved to, e.g., services competitive with, or liable to be
confused with, those of the Complainant, or otherwise to have generated revenues for the Respondent
based on any such potential confusion. Nor is there any suggestion of, e.g., the improper use of emails
configured upon the disputed domain name. ...
2026-05-21 - Case Details
This test is narrower than and thus different to the question of “likelihood of confusion” under trade mark law
which can 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. ...These matters
are sufficient to raise a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in
the disputed domain name given the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s proven trade
mark.
...
2025-10-16 - Case Details
Responding to Complainant’s contentions under the second element, Respondent states that it has a
legitimate interest due to the fact that the disputed domain name consists of a dictionary word and it is used
in association with a website relating to services connected to the dictionary meaning of the word “slots”,
without any reference to Complainant or its marks. ...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Policy, paragraph 4(b) provides that 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 the respondent has registered or has acquired the disputed domain
name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the disputed 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 disputed domain name; or
(ii) the respondent has 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) the respondent has registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the
business of a competitor; or
(iv) 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 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.
...
2023-03-14 - Case Details
- The Respondent was not aware of the Complainant's trademarks when he registered the disputed domain name in 2001 because: (i) he had no interest in football; (ii) he had never visited Barcelona (the Complainant's place of business) prior to when he registered the disputed domain name in 2001; (iii) the language of the Complainant's trademark is Catalan (there is no "ç" character in English or Spanish) and the Respondent does not speak Catalan...- The Complainant has not provided any evidence showing that: (i) its business has been disrupted; (ii) that it has suffered any serious damage, nor any damage at all; (iii) that there has been any confusion resulting from the Respondent's use of the disputed domain name.
- The Complainant has not provided any evidence that the domain is currently being used or has been used, and therefore bases its entire Complaint on the supposed notoriety of its trademark BARÇA and that the Respondent must have acted in bad faith just for having registered the disputed domain name...
2017-10-06 - Case Details
Glove [sic] Valley provides transaction processing and customer service services to Ready Flowers Limited but does not have any interest in the business other than a contractual arrangement for performing the aforementioned services”. ...Specifically under paragraph 4b of the Policy evidence of registration and use in bad faith is established by:
“(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”.
...
2018-08-03 - Case Details
Nor does it show, for example the extent to which the commercial community identifies the Complainant with his companies, the extent to which the Complainant is seen by relevant media and sections of the public as the alter ego and driving force behind his companies, the extent of the personal ownership of the companies by the Complainant, the degree of personal control that the Complainant exercises over the enterprises, the extent to which the Complainant is identified with any major achievements of the enterprises nor whether it can be said that the Complainant has a demonstrable interest in protecting his name for commercial use (see Chung, Mong Koo and Hyundai Motor Company v. Individual,
WIPO Case No. ...It goes on to apply a qualification to this general proposition that bad faith can be found in certain situations when the respondent is clearly aware of the complainant and the aim of the registration was to take advantage of the confusion between the domain name and any potential complainant rights.
There is no doubt in the present case that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant at the point where it registered the disputed domain name. ...
2018-04-06 - Case Details
The Respondent had intended to keep this project confidential but, due to this panel proceeding, it has now applied for an Australian trade mark, registered "Securitas Coin" as a business name and launched a website for its cryptocurrency business with a disclaimer to avoid confusion.
Third, the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name to target or trade off the reputation or trademark of the Complainant. ...Paragraph 4(c)(i) of the auDRP expressly states that the offering of the disputed domain name for sale does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services that would establish a right or legitimate interest for the purposes of the second element. All this indicates that the Respondent's use of the disputed domain name did not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the auDRP.
...
2018-05-02 - Case Details