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 TURBOTAX 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” and “[t]hat purpose is a violation of the Policy, as well as U.S. ...
2019-08-28 - Case Details
Complainant further argues that when a disputed domain name incorporates an entire trademark with only the addition of a descriptive word, it is still confusingly similar to the trademark as the addition of a work like “store” does not eliminate the confusing similarity. See, Hoffmann-LaRoche AG v. P Martin,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0323; Dixons Group Plc. v. Mr. Abu Abdullaah,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0843; V&S Vin & Sprit AB v. ...
2018-05-29 - Case Details
D2017-0388 and to the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1, which states that "[p]anels have categorically held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., the sale of counterfeit goods or illegal pharmaceuticals, phishing, distributing malware, unauthorized account access/hacking, impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent."
...
2018-02-12 - Case Details
D2001-0725, as well as section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0”)) are indicative of bad faith on the part of Respondent in its registration and use of the Domain Name as well (see, The Coca-Cola Company v. P. Engbers,
WIPO Case No. DNL2012-0037; and Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,
WIPO Case No. ...
2018-01-23 - Case Details
In about December 2015, the business was sold to “A P Eagers”. The Respondent appears to have been one of the losing bidders.
Subsequently, in the second half of 2016 (probably not before August 2016), the Complainant acquired the business.
...
2017-07-07 - Case Details
The Complainant has filed a report made by an investigation agency “Greves Protection Management (P) Ltd. (Greves Report). The subject of the Greves Report states it is an: “Investigation into the use of domain name bhartiglobal.com by M/s Bharti International Trade Co. ...
2017-06-30 - Case Details
DCH2009-0021 (which refers by analogy to the "gmail" case decided by the Swiss Supreme Court, sic ! 2008, p. 732, in which the Court held that the registration of a trademark which is not made for the purpose of using it but rather for the purpose of obtaining a financial advantage from the prior user of the trademark conflicts with the principle of good faith and is unfair under Art. 2 SUCA).
7. ...
2014-08-21 - Case Details
In these circumstances, the Respondent’s use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Marks in order to attract Internet users looking for a website of or in some way authorised by the Complainant and then to portray itself falsely as being the Complainant or in some way related to the Complainant, in order to sell merchandise, is a “bait and switch” strategy that lacks bona fides and does not give rise to a right or a legitimate interest under the Policy.
As noted by the panel in Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847, trading upon the name, goodwill and reputation of another by misleadingly attracting Internet users for commercial gain cannot be considered to constitute a bona fide commercial or fair use within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. ...
2014-10-02 - Case Details
In fact, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names were selected and used by the Respondent to take advantage of the notoriety associated with the PORSCHE, SPYDER and 918 SPYDER trademarks and the goodwill attached thereto, most likely with the intent to attract for commercial gain Internet users. See Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847.
In light of the foregoing, the Panel finds that the requirement of Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is met.
...
2014-03-19 - Case Details
In fact, the Panel sees no plausible explanation for Respondent's adoption of the term "coamericapark" in the disputed domain name other than to attract for commercial gain Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's marks. See Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com",
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847.
The disputed domain name has been used to resolve to a "click-through" webpage that displays links to other webpages containing links to third-party websites. ...
2014-06-02 - Case Details
It can also be inferred that the Respondent registered and used the Disputed Domain Name for the specific purpose of trading on the name and reputation of the Complainant and its trademark. 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” and “[t]hat purpose is a violation of the Policy, as well as U.S. ...
2014-05-08 - Case Details
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 CALLIGARIS 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” and “[t]hat purpose is a violation of the Policy, as well as U.S. ...
2014-03-27 - Case Details
The Complainant does not even plead that the Respondent did so; its allegations are that the Respondent's sole business is trafficking in domain names which "prevents others from registering [such domain names]", for potential resale at a profit (Amended Complaint, p. 9); and that the Respondent wouldn't sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant at the Complainant's preferred price. ...
2016-11-01 - Case Details
By so doing, the Respondent is trading on the name and reputation of the Complainant and its LEGO 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" and "[t]hat purpose is a violation of the Policy, as well as U.S. ...
2015-01-23 - Case Details
While this Panel does not have sufficient evidence to decide whether these products are counterfeit, it can be inferred that the Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Names for the specific purpose of trading on the name and reputation of the Complainant and its MILLE MIGLIA 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" and "[t]hat purpose is a violation of the Policy, as well as U.S. ...
2015-07-20 - Case Details
In this scenario, the Complainant first registered the BELVIQ trademark in July 2011 in Switzerland,
and secured its first US Trademark registration for BELVIQ (US Reg. No. 4,080,253) in January 2012 for “[p]harmaceutical preparations for human use, namely, pharmaceutical preparations to treat or prevent obesity; pharmaceutical preparations for weight management, weight loss and the maintenance of weight loss” in Class 5. ...
2014-12-19 - Case Details
As an initial matter, previous UDRP panels have found confusing similarity existed even where other words were included in a domain name that incorporated in its entirety a complainant's trademark. See, e.g., F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. P Martin,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0323 (finding confusing similarity where the domain name incorporated both the complainant's trademark and word associated with a rival brand). ...
2017-02-20 - Case Details
Richi Industry S.r.l.,
WIPO Case No. D2001-1206; Utensilerie Associate S. p. A. v. C & M,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0159; Shaw Industries Group Inc., Columbia Insurance Company v. Wan-Fu China, Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2015-06-18 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant submits that it is a worldwide market leader in toothpaste, toothbrushes, whitening, rinse and related products through its P&G Oral Care Division. It states that it has used the name and trademark CREST since 1955 when the first fluoride toothpaste was introduced and that it currently uses the mark principally in connection with toothpaste, mouthwash and home whitening kits.
...
2015-08-31 - Case Details
Mark:
Classes of Goods & Services:
Date Registered:
1,182,587
PURAVANKARA PROJECTS LIMITED
19
March 12, 2003
1,182,588
PURAVANKARA
19
March 12, 2003
1,266,089
PURAVANKARA
37
February 9, 2004
1,266,090
PURAVANKARA PROJECTS LIMITED and "P" logo
37
February 9, 2004
1,474,154
PURAVANKARA
7, 19 & 37
July 28, 2006
1,591,995
PURAVANKARA and logo
35
August 20, 2007
1,591,997
PURAVANKARA and logo
36
August 20, 2007
1,591,998
PURAVANKARA and logo
39
August 20, 2007
The PURAVANKARA domain names
4.A.4 The Complaint exhibits 162 domain names incorporating the name "Puravankara" owned by the Company. ...
2015-08-24 - Case Details