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”.
...It is reasonable to infer that there will have been a considerable degree of public interest as indicated by the media coverage produced with the Complaint. It is likewise reasonable to infer, given the scope and value of the construction project, that the name of the proposed mall will have become associated with the Complainant in the public mind.
...
2019-05-24 - Case Details
There is no requirement that the Respondent use the disputed domain name to have a
legitimate interest in registering the disputed domain name. It is also legitimate for the Respondent to use
the disputed domain name to direct Internet traffic to the Respondent’s home building website, as the
Respondent intends to do in the future.
...The Complainant is not well known and is not a home builder,
hence there cannot be any confusion. The Respondent never approached the Complainant and never
reached out to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant. ...
2023-01-27 - Case Details
The Foundation exists as a 501(c)3, a tax status
that Congress created to encourage organizations to work in the public interest.”
Another question in the FAQ section of the website is, “Who created this website?” The site provides this
answer:
“An art enthusiast who would like to visit the collection, but has not received any reply to inquiries by phone,
in person, and email. ...To the extent that Complainant’s argument for bad faith relates to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy – “creating
a likelihood of confusion” – Respondent points out such circumstances require Complainant to show that
Respondent’s conduct is “for commercial gain”. ...
2023-02-27 - Case Details
The additional 3 domain names in issue - identified in Amendment
(2) to the Complaint - were registered by the Diabetes Education Long Life -
DELL.
5 The
Parties' Contentions
5.1 The Complainant's Case
5.1.1 The Complainant's case is that the domain names
in issue are identical or confusingly similar to its DELL and DELL family of
trademarks and service marks, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interest in respect of those domain names, and that such domain names were
registered and are being used in bad faith.
5.1.2 The Complainant states that it first
became aware of the domain names in issue through a domain name Watch Report,
the first in January 2002 which identified 62 of the domain names and the
second in March 2002 which identified the remaining 18 domain names. ...- Because the Complainant and the
Respondents are engaged in very different activities, use by the Respondents of
the domain names in issue for its diabetes education project cannot give rise
to any misrepresentation or confusion in relation to the Complainant's goods or
activities.
5.2.2 The Response then lists the following US
and EC Community registered trademarks and trademark applications for DELL and
for marks in which DELL is a component, none of which belong to the
Complainant. ...
2002-07-17 - Case Details
Respondent has not infringed and is not reasonably likely to infringe and marks owned by Inter-Continental, and there is no risk of confusion. "Respondent is not even using the domain at the moment." Finally, Inter-Continental did not trademark or register the Domain Names, thus indicating "their lack of ownership of the name." ...In these circumstances, although it is a close question, the Panel finds by the preponderance of the evidence that Respondent appears to have has at least some ownership interest in or affiliation with the fictitious entity ISPTECH, or at the minimum is its authorized agent. ...
2000-07-10 - Case Details
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith and is clearly attracting users to the offending site by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark because the Respondent has configured the website at the disputed domain name in such a way so as seamlessly to link to a website “www.misserotica.com” which seeks to invite women to enter into a beauty contest.
...There was no explanation for the Complainant’s delay in complaining about the Respondent’s domain name.
A complainant can claim an interest in a mark corresponding to a domain name, even when the mark was registered or came into being after the domain name had been registered. ...
2007-09-20 - Case Details
The Complainants contend that the Respondents are not using the disputed domain names for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use without intent for commercial gain or to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademarks or service marks at issue, as when the site was active it provided information regarding the trade activities of the Complainants which would lead to confusion as evidenced in Annex 11 of the Complaint. Furthermore, even if used only for informative purposes a domain name that does not infringe the Complainants rights or risk confusing consumers could be used.
...This has not been contested by the Respondents and the Panel finds no evidence to suggest the Respondents are commonly known by the disputed domain names or that there are other grounds to establish a legitimate interest to justify choosing the disputed domain names which incorporate the Complainants’ trademarks.
The Complainants note that and are redirected to an error page, they further note that until December 2, 2011 also redirected to an error page but currently redirects to a page that states “Materis Web Design and Programming Consulting Services” as evidenced in Annex 20 of the Complaint. ...
2012-03-07 - Case Details
D2003-0320 – “the Panel concludes that Respondent hopes to either benefit from confusion and the diversion of web traffic or by selling the domain name to the trademark holder. This constitutes bad faith registration of the domain name.”) On the facts in this case, the Respondent has registered the disputed domain names, including the Domain Name, without legitimate interest and in order to obtain financial compensation.
(v) The Respondent's bad faith is further evidenced by his refusal to accede to the request made by the Complainant's representative that the Respondent transfer to the appropriate owner the disputed domain names.
...
2010-08-13 - Case Details
These authorities provide that resellers,
distributors, or service providers using a domain name containing the complainant's trademark to undertake
sales 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. The cumulative Oki Data requirements
are: (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 Complainant advances two theories of bad faith: first, that the Respondent registered and is using the
disputed domain name to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with
the Complainant's mark, citing paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy and section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.1;
and second, that the Respondent has retained and used the disputed domain name to disrupt the
Complainant's business, citing paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy. ...
2026-06-04 - Case Details
The Complainant further asserts that the Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed
domain name based on: (i) the lack of evidence that the Respondent has offered legitimate goods or
services through the disputed domain name; (ii) the Complainant’s longstanding trademark rights, which
predate registration of the disputed domain name by twenty years; and (iii) the Respondent’s failure to use
the disputed domain name in connection with “a gripe site that conveys useful information to consumers via
a fair use or legitimate non-commercial use of the mark” but instead the Respondent use in connection with
“a fount of disinformation and libel that unfairly damages Complainant’s mark, and reputation, and creates
unwarranted confusion for consumers”. Specifically, the Complainant asserts that “the Web content accuses
Complainant of sexual misconduct against minors and of accomplice liability for aiding his children to escape
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?...As such, the Respondent argues that it has a genuine critical fair use interest in the
disputed domain name under the Policy, specifically to disseminate information about, and court documents
related to, the Complainant.
...
2026-03-10 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights because: (i) it is identical to the Complainant’s registered word trademark SUPERMAC’S; (ii) the Complainant’s SUPERMAC’S trademark has a very high degree of acquired distinctiveness through its extensive use throughout Ireland and the United Kingdom for 40 years; and (iii) if any use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent takes place, there will undoubtedly be confusion amongst consumers, and damage to the business activities of the Complainant.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because: (i) there is, and has been, no evidence of use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent other than to indicate that it is available for sale; and (ii) as the sole purpose of registering the disputed domain name is to sell it to the Complainant, or a competitor of the Complainant, for an amount advertised at USD 19,888, it can be fairly assumed that it has been registered without any bona fide reason.
...Similar findings of a lack of rights and legitimate interest, and of registration in bad faith, on the basis of the “exorbitant” price (USD 200,000) at which the Respondent offered the domain name for sale were made in Tracy Anderson. ...
2018-05-25 - Case Details
This means that only German-speaking customers can have interest and an access to the services rendered by the Complainant.
The Respondent asks for a finding of reverse domain name hi-jacking against the Complainant.
...The Complainant does not show whether its trademark is in fact known outside of Germany therefore any benefit from the likelihood of confusion that the Respondent may be seeking to achieve with the Complainant’s trademark (if any) is limited and such course of action would be unlikely since the Complainant and the Respondent operate in different geographical markets.
...
2012-10-04 - Case Details
D2012-1651, the respondent, who competed with the complainant in the sale of garage doors in the Boise area, argued that it had a right or legitimate interest in the domain name which incorporated the complainant’s registered BOISE GARAGE DOOR trademark because it used the disputed domain name only as a “search engine optimization term” for a forwarding page leading to its primary website at “www.sunrisegaragedoor.com” and not for the purpose of diverting customers from the complainant. ...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out, by way of example, four circumstances, each of which, if proven, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith for the purpose of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy:
(i) circumstances indicating that the registrant 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 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.
...
2013-08-02 - Case Details
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant in any way, that the
Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use and register its trademark or any domain name
incorporating it, that the Complainant’s trademark registration predates the Respondent’s use, that the
Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, that there is no evidence of any business
name, personal name or public recognition corresponding to the disputed domain name, that the
page 6
Respondent owns no trademark rights in the disputed domain name, that it cannot assert that it was using or
making demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering
of goods or services before any notice of the dispute, that it is misleadingly suggesting a connection with the
Complainant on its website, that it is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed
domain name, and that it is attempting to attract Internet users by creating confusion with the Complainant’s
trademark and domain name due to cloning of the entire website.
The Complainant asserts that it enjoys prior rights in the LIQUID RUBBER trademark and the corresponding
domain name, adding that the disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s mark with the
addition of the descriptive term “world” which reinforces a misleading impression. ...Preliminary issue: Consolidation of Multiple Complainants
The present Complaint is brought by two affiliated entities, claiming a common legal interest in the trademark
LIQUID RUBBER and a common grievance against the Respondent.
In assessing whether a complaint filed by multiple unrelated complainants may be brought against a single
respondent, panels look at whether (i) the complainants have a specific common grievance against the
page 9
respondent, or the respondent has engaged in common conduct that has affected the complainants in a
similar fashion, and (ii) it would be equitable and procedurally efficient to permit the consolidation. ...
2026-04-09 - Case Details
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 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.”
...As a single example of the possible permutations, even if it could be shown that the Respondent had full knowledge of the Complainant and its airline activities prior to acquiring the disputed domain name, the fact that the Complainant had changed its corporate name in 2013 and may have decided not to renew the disputed domain name at that point might have led the Respondent to a reasonable belief that the Complainant no longer had any interest in the JAT mark.
Turning to the second limb of the Complainant’s case on bad faith, the Complainant submits that email to the disputed domain name is being automatically redirected to the Complainant’s domain name and that this indicates both knowledge and intent on the part of the Respondent to target the Complainant. ...
2017-12-28 - Case Details
In these circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has established a prima facie case that Mr Bilal used his position as admin of the disputed domain name for the Complainant to transfer it to the Respondent without the Complainant’s agreement.
...Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy 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 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 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 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 the Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.
...
2020-11-03 - Case Details
In addition, as an advertising and branding agency, Faidon has used the term “Folkia” and the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of its services. As such, it had a legitimate interest in retaining copyright in the names and domain names it created except where and to the extent it assigned those rights.
...The Complainant and the Respondent are not competitors and the disputed domain name was not registered by the Respondent primarily to disrupt the Complainant’s business, nor in an intentional attempt to attract for commercial gain Internet users to the Respondent’s website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark.
The Complainant has contractual remedies under applicable national law. ...
2011-08-08 - Case Details
The Majority Panelists note that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s renowned
ROCCA trademark, and was therefore liable to cause confusion to Internet users.
The Majority Panelists find it significant that the Respondent failed to update the registration details for the
disputed domain name following the dissolution of the original registrant, Finco SRL, in breach of, e.g., the
applicable ICANN regulations.2 While the Respondent may be correct that even after an update a WhoIs
search would have revealed only privacy or proxy information, the fact remains that the Registrar was
unable to provide accurate registration information to the Center in connection with the Complaint.
...Moreover, the Complainant expressly
admits that its present interest in acquiring the disputed domain name derives from an internal rebranding
exercise, such that the disputed domain name, as opposed to the “Rocca 1794” name under which it has
previously traded, has become commercially and strategically valuable to it. ...
2026-09-07 - Case Details
対 Blomma and Co, Tsutomu Ikeda, WIPO 事件番号 D2011-0573）のであり、本件ドメイン名においても、いわゆる最初の関心を起こさせる混同（first interest confusion）が生じていた可能性はあると考えられる。したがって、被申立人に、インターネットのユーザーを、本件ドメイン名を使用したウェブサイトに引き寄せる意図があったことは否定できない。
...
2022-03-01 - Case Details
Respondent’s non-use of the remaining passively held Disputed Domain Names does not
confer it with a legitimate interest.
Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
...Next, Complainant contends that Respondents’ use of the Disputed Domain Names is to capitalize on the
reputation of Complainant’s trademarks by diverting Internet users seeking Complainant’s products to its
websites for financial gain, by intentionally creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s registered
trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its websites and/or the goods offered
or promoted through the websites. ...
2022-08-12 - Case Details