Section 3.5 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 states that “[p]articularly with respect to ‘automatically’ generated
payper-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)”. ...
2023-06-19 - Case Details
- The Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith because, inter alia, “by
using the domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain,
Internet users to Respondent’s 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
Respondent’s web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent’s] web site or location”;
“[p]articularly where the domain name at issue is identical or confusingly similar to a highly distinctive
or famous mark, panels have tended to view with a degree of skepticism a respondent defense that
the domain name was merely registered for legitimate speculation (based for example on any claimed
dictionary meaning) as opposed to targeting a specific brand owner”; the ITRON Trademark “well-
known and distinctive” and “Complainant is the only search result on the entire first page when typing
‘Itron’ into Google”; “[i]t can be reasonably inferred Respondent knew of [the ITRON Trademark]
before Respondent registered its infringing website in 2022”; the Disputed Domain Name
“incorporates the entirety of” the ITRON Trademark “with only a slight misspelling, to trick consumers
into thinking they are visiting Complainant’s website, but instead redirects consumers to a gambling
website”; [i]t is also more likely than not that Respondent’s website operates for the commercial gain
of the Respondent, or for the commercial gain of the operators of the websites the Iftron domain name
redirects Consumers to, or both”; and “Respondent’s bad faith is further indicated by the fact that
Respondent uses a privacy or proxy service to hide its identity”.
...
2023-04-24 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that:
- Each of the Disputed Domain Names is identical or confusingly similar to the BESTFORM Trademark
because “[b]y virtue of its trademark and service mark registrations […], Complainant is the owner of
BESTFORM trademarks”; “Respondent has added the generic, descriptive terms ‘fr’, ‘lingerie’ and
‘soldes’ to Complainant’s BESTFORM trademark, thereby making the Disputed Domain Names
confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark”; “the terms ‘lingerie’ and ‘soldes’ are closely linked
and associated with Complainant’s brand and trademark, that its use only serves to underscore and
increase the confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Names and the Complainant’s
trademark”; “[p]ast Panels have consistently held that a disputed domain name that consists merely of
a complainant’s trademark and an additional term that closely relates to and describes that
complainant’s business is confusingly similar to that complainant’s trademarks”; “the geographically
page 3
descriptive term ‘fr’, the two-letter abbreviation for France […] does not sufficiently differentiate the
disputed domain name from that trademark”; and “Respondent’s previous use of the Disputed Domain
Names contributes to the confusion...
2025-05-14 - Case Details
Here, the Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed
Domain Names 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”).
...
2026-03-05 - Case Details
Furthermore, the Complaint itself is
contradictory on this point, as it also states that the Complainant filed its intent-to-use applications on March
21, 2025, “[p]rior to its launch” of the club. Further undermining this assertion of use in commerce is the fact
that the Complainant alleges as of the date it filed the Complaint that the Complainant “is a newly
established LLC that will operate [emphasis added] a private, members-only club in Washington, D.C.,”
which implies that it was not yet operating the club at the time it filed the Complaint on May 30, 2025.
...
2025-08-18 - Case Details
Proactiva, WIPO Case No. D2012-0182; Mercado
Libre Inc v. P Mercado Pago, Pedro Yukio Sato, WIPO Case No. D2022-0624; WIPO Overview 3.0, section
1.11.1.
Furthermore, the disputed domain name adds the hyphen and the term “us” at the end of the Mark, which the
Panel finds could be seen as implicitly referring to the United States. ...
2025-09-04 - 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 Complainants. 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”).
...
2024-08-02 - Case Details
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 HUMANA 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”).
...
2024-11-22 - 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)”. ...
2022-09-20 - Case Details
In relation to the Domain Name (an extra “c” is presented in the word “aircraft”):
On November 15, 2021, Respondent impersonated an employee and assistant to a senior executive at
Complainant by using the email address […]@insuredairccraft.com to contact one of Complainant’s clients
stating “[p]lease find attached wire instructions”, in an attempt to fraudulently divert funds to Respondent’s
bank account. ...
2022-08-19 - Case Details
The Parties
The Complainant is Volkswagen AG of Wolfsburg, Germany, represented by Golebiowska Krawczyk Roszkowski i Partnerzy Kancelaria Adwokacko-Radcowska Sp. p., Poland.
The Respondent is Yavuz Tokgoz of Ankara, Turkey.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with FBS Inc. ...
2017-06-01 - Case Details
Complainant further argues that when the Disputed Domain Names incorporate an entire trademark with only the addition of a common word like “Egypt,” they are still confusingly similar to the trademark as the addition of a geographical identifier does not eliminate the likelihood of confusion. 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. ...
2017-05-30 - Case Details
D2000-0003, as follows:
i) The Complainant's wide reputation has been recognized by UDRP panels, with whom this Panel agrees (see e.g., ASSA ABLOY AB v. P D S AB,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0442). Therefore this Panel considers that the evidence filed by the Complainant adequately proves that the ASSA ABLOY mark is widely known;
ii) The Respondent has provided no evidence whatsoever of any actual or contemplated good faith use of the disputed domain names;
iii) Respondent Sharif and Respondent Zanhani own or have owned several domain name registrations incorporating third party trademarks (or variations thereof) such as the following:
a) Respondent Sharif: , , and .
...
2016-04-18 - Case Details
The Parties
The Complainant is Volkswagen AG of Wolfsburg, Germany, represented by Gołębiowska Krawczyk Roszkowski i Partnerzy Kancelaria Adwokacko-Radcowska Sp. p., Poland.
The Respondent is Hui Min Wang, Wang Hui Min, 王慧敏 of Taiyuan, Shanxi, China, self-represented.
2. ...
2017-06-28 - Case Details
Complainant further argues that when a Disputed Domain Name incorporates an entire trademark with only the addition of a common word, it is still confusingly similar to the trademark as the addition of non-distinctive phrases does not eliminate the likelihood of confusion. See, F. Hoffmann-La Roche 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. ...
2018-05-09 - Case Details
In response to the written notification of the Complaint, an email was sent to the Center on August 2, 2017, from an employee of a business called "RightParks P/L trading as Partsheaven" located in the State of Victoria, Australia, which is the same area as the physical address details in the WhoIs record for the Respondent. ...
2017-09-19 - Case Details
The Respondent, on the other hand, claims that “[p]ursuant to a recent agreement among members of the Tabibi family, in June, 2017, [Alexander] Tabibi acquired the interests of Carlo and Antoinette [Tabibi], and thus became the sole shareholder and executive officer of the Respondent ZCapital Inc. while this Proceeding has been pending.” ...
2017-09-11 - Case Details
Aprovechar el reconocimiento de las marcas de la Promovente para atraer usuarios de Internet con el fin de obtener ganancias, no confiere derechos o intereses legítimos sobre dicho nombre de dominio en favor del Titular (ver, mutatis mutandi, Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com",
Caso OMPI No. D2000-0847, y Philipp Plein v. Privacy Protection Service INC d/b/a PrivacyProtect.org / Norma Brandon, cheapphilippplein,
Caso OMPI No. ...
2017-11-17 - Case Details
The Complainant's trademark consists of the words "Perle Bleue" written in white letters with a gold spot between them, above which there is a stylized, reversed letter "p" in gold, joined to a gold letter "b".
With reference to the assessment of identity or confusing similarity in cases where a complainant relies on trademark registrations containing design elements, section 1.10 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 states that:
"Panel assessment of identity or confusing similarity involves comparing the (alpha-numeric) domain name and the textual components of the relevant mark. ...
2018-02-12 - Case Details
Fourthly, this Panel finds that the addition of the generic term “ze” does not constitute an element so as to avoid confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy (see F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. P. Martin,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0323; Ansell Healthcare Products Inc. v. Australian Therapeutics Supplies Pty, Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2018-02-02 - Case Details