Conforme dispõe o parágrafo
único do artigo 1º da Resolução CGI.br/RES/2008/008/P do Comitê Gestor da Internet do Brasil, é proibida
a escolha, pelo titular do domínio, de nome que “induza terceiros a erro, que viole direitos de terceiros”, in
verbis:
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?...
2025-01-14 - Case Details
Additionally, section 3.2.1 of the 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); [...] ...
2025-01-07 - Case Details
Additionally, section 3.2.1 of the 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); [...] ...
2025-02-17 - Case Details
First, 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 SILVER CREEK 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”).
...
2025-01-27 - Case Details
Here, the Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name
indicates that such registration and use had been done for the specific purpose of trading upon and targeting
the name, mark, and reputation of the Complainant. 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”).
...
2024-12-16 - Case Details
Here, the Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name
indicates that such registration and use had been done for the specific purpose of trading upon and targeting
the reputation, name, mark, and goodwill of the Complainant. 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”).
...
2025-11-05 - Case Details
Here, the Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name
indicates that such registration and use had been done for the specific purpose of trading upon and targeting
the reputation, name, mark, and goodwill of the Complainant. 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 ef fort to trade upon the fame of Complainant’s name and mark for
commercial gain.”).
...
2025-12-05 - Case Details
Here, the Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed
Domain Name indicates that such registration and use had been done for the specific purpose of trading
upon and targeting the trademark and reputation of the Complainant. 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”).
...
2024-10-17 - Case Details
Here, the Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed
Domain Name indicates that such registration and use had been done for the specific purpose of trading
upon and targeting the name and reputation of the Complainant. 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”).
...
2024-10-09 - Case Details
D2018-2589; see also WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.2 (“[P]articularly in
circumstances where the complainant’s mark is widely known (including in its sector) or highly specific and a
respondent cannot credibly claim to have been unaware of the mark…, panels have been prepared to infer
that the respondent knew, or have found that the respondent should have known, that its registration would
be identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark.”).
...
2025-08-04 - Case Details
After Hours Home Physio a.k.a. Shadex Industries P/L a.k.a.
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2000-0169
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?...
2025-07-25 - 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.” ...
2024-10-21 - 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.” ...
2024-12-10 - Case Details
The record shows that the Domain Name has been resolving to a p...
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
B. Respondent...
2024-10-25 - Case Details
DRO2022-0010
Punctul 15(a) din Reguli sugereaza ca decizia in privinta unei plângeri trebuie sa se faca pe baza declarațiilor și documentelor prezentate Completului Administrativ și în conformitate cu Politica, aceste Reguli și orice reguli și principii de drept p......
2023-03-23 - Case Details
Additionally, see section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 which explains: “[p]anels have
consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a
famous or widely-known trade mark by an unaffiliated entity (particularly domain names comprising typos or
incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) can by itself create a presumption of bad faith”. ...
2023-03-22 - 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”. ...
2022-11-28 - Case Details
See
also section 2.13.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 which explains that UDRP “[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”.
...
2022-12-09 - Case Details
The Panel accepts that this showed the intention on the p...
Finally, the Respondent failed to provide any response or evidence to establish its good faith or absence of bad faith. ...
2022-12-16 - Case Details
The Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain
Name 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 MAKEMYTRIP 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”).
...
2023-01-05 - Case Details