The Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name indicate that such registration and use has been done for the specific purpose of trading on the name and reputation of the Complainant and its PLAYBOY Mark. See Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847 (“[t]he only plausible explanation for Respondent’s actions appears to be an intentional effort to trade upon the fame of Complainant’s name and mark for commercial gain”). ...
2021-09-29 - Case Details
Moreover, as is stated in section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, “[p]anels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a famous or widely-known trade mark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith”.
...
2022-02-17 - Case Details
The Parties
The Complainant is National Council of State Boards of Nursing, Inc., United States of America, represented by Vedder Price P. C., United States of America.
The Respondent is Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC, United States of America / NCLEX Office, Cameroon.
2. ...
2021-06-04 - Case Details
o) The registrant city is spelled “Ha Noi” for all disputed domain names.
p) The disputed domain names were registered using a gmail email address.
The Complainant requests the domain names , , , and to be added to the Complaint, as the said four domain names have been registered by the Respondent in an abusive pattern to frustrate the Complainant and the procedure. ...
2021-04-16 - Case Details
‘To conclude otherwise would mean that a Respondent could rely on intentional infringement to demonstrate a legitimate interest, an interpretation that is obviously contrary to the intent of the Policy.’” (quoting Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com",
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847)). In this case, Respondent used the disputed domain name to direct Internet users to a website intended to mimic that of Complainant, ostensibly to capitalize on misdirected Internet traffic to this imposter website. ...
2021-05-17 - Case Details
Section 3.5 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 states that “[p]articularly with respect to ‘automatically’ generated pay-per-click links, panels have held that a respondent cannot disclaim responsibility for content appearing on the website associated with its domain name (nor would such links ipso facto vest the respondent with rights or legitimate interests)”. ...
2021-05-28 - Case Details
The Respondents’ registration and use of the Disputed Domain Names indicate that such registration and use had been done for the specific purpose of trading on the name and reputation of the Complainants and the JADED LONDON Mark (or at least the dominant portion of the mark). See Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847 (“[t]he only plausible explanation for Respondent’s actions appears to be an intentional effort to trade upon the fame of Complainant’s name and mark for commercial gain”). ...
2021-05-26 - Case Details
VistaPrint Technologies Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2015-0886; Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi / "Madonna.com",
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847).
For these reasons, this Panel finds that Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name has been in bad faith.
7. ...
2021-06-09 - Case Details
The Panel also notes that any registrant can list any name – real or fake – in the registrar’s database on an unverified basis and merely listing a designation with the registrar cannot by itself be the basis for a finding of rights in a domain name. See notably in this respect Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847.
The Panel finds that the Respondent has failed to produce any evidence to establish his rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. ...
2022-01-18 - Case Details
Referring to the third paragraph of section 1.7 of the WIPO
Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDR-P Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), the
Complainant observes that where a domain name incorporates a trade mark in its entirety, or where at least
a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally
be considered confusingly similar to the mark.
...
2024-04-08 - Case Details
Goharbarane
Sharif / Mohammad Reza Rahmani Zanjani, WIPO Case No. DIR2016-0005, and ASSA ABLOY AB v. P
D S AB, WIPO Case No. D2000-0442). ASSA ABLOY is a highly distinctive trademark for the classes
of goods and services for which it is registered, and it has no descriptive character.
...
2024-02-27 - Case Details
In this regard, the Panel refers to the WIPO
Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4, which states “[p]anels have consistently found that the mere registration of a
domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos or
incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaf f iliated
entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith.” ...
2023-12-20 - Case Details
Furthermore, the use of a domain name which intentionally trades on the fame of another and suggests
affiliation with the trademark owner cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services (Madonna
Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”, WIPO Case No. D2000-0847; AB Electrolux v.
Handi Sofian, Service Electrolux Lampung, WIPO Case No. ...
2024-01-05 - Case Details
Furthermore, the use of a domain name which intentionally trades on the fame of another and suggests
affiliation with the trademark owner cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services (Madonna
Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”, WIPO Case No. D2000-0847; AB Electrolux v.
Handi Sofian, Service Electrolux Lampung, WIPO Case No. ...
2024-01-08 - Case Details
In this
regard, the Panel refers to the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4, which states “[p]anels have consistently
found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain
names comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a famous or widely-known
trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith.” ...
2024-01-05 - Case Details
In this regard, the Panel refers to the WIPO Overview 3.0, section
3.1.4, which states “[p]anels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is
identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a
descriptive term) to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a
presumption of bad faith.” ...
2023-03-30 - Case Details
For example, panels have generally declined to find respondent rights or
legitimate interests in a domain name on the basis of a corresponding trade mark registration where the
overall circumstances demonstrate that such trade mark was obtained primarily to circumvent the application
of the UDRP or otherwise prevent the complainant’s exercise of its rights (even if only in a particular
jurisdiction) (WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 2.12.2).
In Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”, WIPO Case No. D2000-0847, the
panel held as follows:
“However, it would be a mistake to conclude that mere registration of a trademark creates a legitimate
interest under the Policy…To establish cognizable rights, the overall circumstances should
demonstrate that the registration was obtained in good faith for the purpose of making bona fide use of
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/2000/d2000-0847.html
page 5
the mark in the jurisdiction where the mark is registered, and not obtained merely to circumvent the
application of the Policy.”
...
2023-03-20 - Case Details
In this regard, the Panel refers to the WIPO
Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4, which states “[p]anels have consistently found that the mere registration of a
domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos or
incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated
entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith.” ...
2023-03-20 - Case Details
In this regard, the Panel also
refers to the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4, which states “[p]anels have consistently found that the mere
registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising
typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a famous or widely-known trademark by an
unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith”. ...
2023-04-14 - Case Details
As explained at section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0: “[p]anels have consistently found that the mere
registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising
typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a famous or widely-known trade mark by an
unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith.” ...
2023-02-01 - Case Details