Second, based on the circumstances here, the Panel concludes that the Respondent’s registration and use
of the Disputed Domain Name had been done for the specific purpose of trading on the name and reputation
of the Complainant and its FACEBOOK 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”).
...
2023-01-27 - Case Details
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered
trademark DIRTYROULETTE since it contains an obvious misspelling of this mark, where the “o” has been
replaced with a “p”. See section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.
Furthermore, the generic Top-level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is a standard registration requirement and as
such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. ...
2023-01-13 - Case Details
First, Complainant relied in part on two federal trademark applications, representing that “[b]oth applications
are currently pending”. Complaint p. 7. This argument was factually misleading because Complainant did
not disclose that it filed an “Express Abandonment” of the standard character application on the very same
day that it filed the UDRP Complaint with the Center. ...
2023-01-13 - Case Details
First, the Panel finds that 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 VFS GLOBAL 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”).
...
2023-01-11 - Case Details
- The Complainant is listed on both the National Stock Exchange of India (NSE) and the Bombay Stock
Exchange (BSE) and is present on several indices including the NSE’s Nifty 500 and the S&P BSE
500.
- The Complainant claims to have coined, adopted and started using the mark/expression ZENSAR in
2001 in respect of a wide range of products and services. ...
2023-03-08 - Case Details
Furthermore, the use of a domain name which intentionally trades on the fame of another and suggests
affiliation with the trademark owner contrary to the fact 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. ...
2023-02-09 - Case Details
First, the Panel finds that 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 VF 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”).
...
2023-01-18 - Case Details
As also explained in section 2.13.2 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, “[p]anels
are generally not prepared to accept merely conclusory or wholly unsupported allegations of illegal activity,
including counterfeiting, even when the respondent is in default. ...
2023-11-13 - Case Details
In 2022, the Complainant’s total worldwide revenue was approximately USD 27.3 billion, and it ranked
number 129 in the Fortune 500 Companies list. The Complainant is a member of the S&P 500 and has
around 14,500 employees worldwide. The Complainant carries out its business under the name and
trademark GILEAD, which it claims is well-known for pharmaceutical products and medical information
services. ...
2023-11-03 - Case Details
The Respondent’s
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 Complainant and its BREITLING 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”).
...
2023-07-21 - Case Details
The Parties
The Complainant is Aitch Group Limited, United Kingdom, represented by S&P Legal, United Kingdom.
The Respondent is Filip Sazavsky, Czech Republic.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...
2023-07-27 - Case Details
The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks, including (hereinafter “the ADECCO Trademarks”):
- the Swiss trademark ADECCO No. 2P-431224 registered on September 26, 1996, for products and
services in classes 35, 41 and 42;
- the Swiss trademark ADECCO No. P-549358 registered on August 18, 2006, for products and
services in classes 9, 35, 36, 41 and 42;
- the European Union Trade Mark ADECCO No. 003330149 registered on January 19, 2005, for
products and services in classes 35, 41 and 42;
- the international trademark ADECCO No. 666347 registered on October 17, 1996, for products and
services in classes 35, 41 and 42; and
- the international trademark ADECCO (figurative) No. 901755 registered on August 18, 2006, for
products and services in classes 9, 35, 36, 41 and 42.
...
2023-07-07 - Case Details
The Parties
The Complainant is Freeman Holding, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by
Vedder Price P. C., United States.
The Respondent is Elle Lively, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...
2023-07-06 - Case Details
Although the Policy addresses ways in which a respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name, it is well established, as it is put in section 2.1 of WIPO Overview 3.0, that a complainant is required to make out a p...
There is no evidence in the present case that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, enabling it to establish rights or legitimate interests therein.
...
2023-09-19 - Case Details
Additionally, according to
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1, “[p]anels have categorially held that use of a domain name for illegal
activity (e.g., ...distribution of malware...) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent”.
...
2023-10-23 - Case Details
Section 3.2.1 of WIPO Overview 3.0 provides that “[p]articular circumstances panels may take into account
in assessing whether the respondent’s registration of a domain name is in bad faith include: (i) the nature of
the domain name (e.g., a typo of a widely-known mark, or a domain name incorporating the complainant’s
mark plus an additional term such as a descriptive or geographic term, or one that corresponds to the
complainant’s area of activity or natural zone of expansion) [...] ...
2024-06-03 - 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.” ...
2024-01-12 - Case Details
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has not produced, and there is no evidence of the types of circumstances set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy that might give rise to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name on the part of the Respondent in these p...
The Panel recognizes that there may be some limited situations where the registration and use of domain names that specifically refer to and incorporate the trademark of another entity may serve legitimate purposes, cf. ...
2024-08-19 - Case Details
The Parties
Complainant is Freeman Holding, LLC, United States of America (“USA”), represented by Vedder Price P.
C., USA.
Respondent is 杨智超 (Zhi Chao Yang), China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Chengdu West Dimension Digital
Technology Co., Ltd. ...
2024-06-07 - Case Details
Factual Background
The Complainant is the Luxembourgish savings bank being an autonomous public establishment created according to the Luxembourgish law of March 24,1989, and is the owner of the SPUERKEESS trademark and service mark for which it holds an international p...
- Swiss registered trademark and service mark SPUERKEESS, registration number 615157, registered on December 30, 2010, for goods and services in classes 9,16, 25, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 45;
- European Union TM SPUERKEESS, registration number 009110552, registered on November 2, 2010, for goods and services in classes 9,16, 25, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 45; and
- United Kingdom registered trademark SPUERKEESS, registration number UK00909110552, registered on November 2, 2010, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 25, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42 and 45.
...
2024-02-02 - Case Details