The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is . The Registrar of the domain
name is BulkRegister.com, 10 East Baltimore St., Suite 1500, Baltimore, MD 21202,
USA.
3. ...On August 22, 2002, the Center requested and obtained from BulkRegister.com,
the registrar of the disputed domain name, verification that the domain name
is registered with BulkRegister.com and the Respondent is the registrant for
the domain name.
...
2002-10-18 - Informations relatives au litige
- That Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name demonstrates Respondent’s lack of a legitimate non commercial interest in, or fair use of, the domain name (and cites Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. ...D2000-0179 and V&S Vin & Sprit Aktiebolag v Tyler Kownacki, NAF Case No. 95079).
Respondent has not been granted any authorization to register the disputed domain name (see Société Air France v. ...
2008-09-22 - Informations relatives au litige
Moreover the Respondent has never been commonly known by the disputed domain name and has no legitimate interest in the SWAROVSKI trademark or the name “Swarovski” (Marriott International, Inc. v. ...The Respondent was in the Panel’s view fully aware that the Complainant had established rights in the SWAROVSKI trademark at the time the Respondent registered the disputed domain name. The Panel also notes that the mere registration of the disputed domain name may not of itself confer rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name (Terroni Inc. v. ...
2014-05-01 - Informations relatives au litige
The use of the Domain Name for an illegal activity such as constructing an email composition containing the Domain Name for deceiving purposes cannot confer rights or legitimate interests on Respondent (L’ Oréal v. ...Forum LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0517; Compart AG v. Compart.com / Vertical Axis Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0462).
Furthermore, the Domain Name incorporates in whole Complainant’s mark with a replacement of the letter “v” for “u” on the “Minerva” part of the Domain Name and the term “foods” that corresponds to the nature of Complainant’s business. ...
2018-11-19 - Informations relatives au litige
D2015-1779). As Respondent is not actively using the domain name, there is no legitimate use that would give rise to a legitimate right or interest in the domain name (see Société Nationale des télécommunications: Tunisie Telecom v. ...Therefore, as passive holding evidences bad faith registration and use (Union InVivo v. Name Redacted,
WIPO Case No. D2020-1188) the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is used in bad faith (Linxens Holding v. ...
2022-03-16 - Informations relatives au litige
For example,
in Springsteen v. Burgar [20] the
majority of the panel held that paragraph 4(b)(ii) should be read as referring
to "any corresponding domain name" rather than "a particular
corresponding domain name". ...That interpretation was expressly
disagreed with by the panel in Julie Brown v. Julie Brown Club [21]and
Celine Dion v. Bugar[22], on the
basis that the registration of a trademark as a domain name in the .com gTLD
prevented the trademark owners from securing "the straightforward .com
registration" for their trademarks, which is "a corresponding domain
name". ...
2002-08-22 - Informations relatives au litige
The use of the Domain Name for an illegal activity such as constructing an email composition containing the Domain Name for deceiving purposes cannot confer rights or legitimate interests on Respondent (L’Oréal v. ...Because the MINERVA mark had been widely used and registered at the time of the Domain Name registration by Complainant, the Panel finds it more likely than not that Respondent had Complainant’s mark in mind when registering this Domain Name (Tudor Games, Inc. v. ...
2018-11-19 - Informations relatives au litige
D2005-0694; Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. v. Sookwan Park,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0778). Moreover, the inclusion of the gTLD suffix “.com” does not avoid confusing similarity of the domain name and the trademark (AT&T Corp. v. ...The Respondent has never been known by the disputed domain name and has no legitimate interest in the Complainant’s trademarks or the name (Swarovski (Marriott Int’l, Inc. v. ...
2014-05-13 - Informations relatives au litige
D2003-0841 where the deletion of the letter ‘s' in domain name confusingly similar to complainant's domain name and trademark HERSHEY'S and in Pop Smear, Inc. v. ...See i.a. Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0429 “the specific top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar”; Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B. v. ...
2008-11-26 - Informations relatives au litige
Complainant maintains that the disputed domain name infringes its registered trademark rights in V-KOOL and its common law trademark rights in I’M V-KOOL. ...Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name combines Complainant’s V-KOOL trademark and the letters “im”. The use of “im” with Complainant’s V-KOOL trademark as featured in the disputed domain name does not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the V-KOOL trademark to dispel the likelihood of confusion. ...
2012-01-26 - Informations relatives au litige
The Respondent had never been commonly known by the disputed domain name and had not acquired trademark or service mark rights in this domain name prior to the registration of the disputed domain name (Neteller plc v. ...Mere registration of the disputed domain name may not of itself confer rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name (Terroni Inc. v. ...
2013-11-21 - Informations relatives au litige
John Zuccarini d/b/a Music Wave and the Domain Name RaveClub Berlin,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0440; America Online, Inc. v. Anson Chan,
WIPO Case No. ...This type of parking has consistently supported a finding of bad faith use of the domain name. See Maplin Electronics Limited v. Lee Jeongsoon,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0011; Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu v. ...
2010-11-05 - Informations relatives au litige
See, Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. Domain Administrator / Pepito DZZD,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1213 (“The disputed domain name includes a misspelt version of the SWAROVSKI trademark of the Complainant. ...The Respondent has never been known by the disputed domain name and has no legitimate interest in the SWAROVSKI Marks or the name "Swarovski". See, Marriott Int'l, Inc. v. ...
2012-03-06 - Informations relatives au litige
Respondent must now show by “concrete evidence” that it has rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Kate Spade, L.L. C. v. Darmstadter Designs,
WIPO Case No. D2001-l384; See Document Technologies Inc. v. ...See VeriSign Inc. v. Bin g Glu / G Design,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0421. At the time the Domain Name was registered, Complainant had already made widespread and substantial use of its LA QUINTA mark since 1969 and its domain name since 1995. ...
2010-11-02 - Informations relatives au litige
D2007-1325;
- it is likely that Respondent registered the disputed domain name to prevent Complainant from using its trademarks in the disputed domain name. In this sense, the Complainant refers to the following panel decision: L’oreal v. ...VistaPrint Technologies Ltd., supra; Carrefour v. Park KyeongSook, supra; Carrefour v. Yujinhua, supra; Carrefour v. Karin Krueger, supra.
Therefore, in this Panel’s view, it is safe to conclude that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its CARREFOUR and CARREFOUR BANCA trademarks when it registered the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent’s intention was for the disputed domain name to trade on the renown of the Complainant and its trademarks. ...
2017-06-15 - Informations relatives au litige
The use of the Domain Name for an illegal activity such as constructing an email composition containing the Domain Name for deceiving purposes cannot confer rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent (L' Oréal v. ...The Panel concludes that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith. Because the NESTLÉ mark is so well-known and had been widely used for more than 140 years and registered at the time of the Domain Name registration, the Panel finds it more likely than not that Respondent had Complainant's mark in mind when registering this Domain Name (Société des Produits Nestlé SA v. ...
2018-08-30 - Informations relatives au litige
A screenshot of the error message shown when accessing the Domain Name as seen on April 24, 2019 has been provided to the Panel.
The Respondent's holding of the Domain Name with no active website is referred to as “passive use” (Philip Morris USA Inc. v. ...The Respondent clearly selected the Domain Name with the intention of taking advantage of the Complainant's reputation by registering a domain name fully containing the Complainant’s trade name with the intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain (Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. ...
2019-06-12 - Informations relatives au litige
D2006-1374 ; Hilton Group Plc v. Young Nah,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0184, V&S Vin & Sprit v. Young Nah,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0961.
- That a review of the site to which the domain name resolves, will show links to third party pages without any reference to Complainant's Zema Trademarks or the Zema Group companies...D2007-0626 and Sanofi-aventis v. Montanya ILtd.,
WIPO Case No. D2006-1079.
Respondent has not submitted evidence showing that Complainant has granted Respondent any authorization to register the disputed domain name (see Société Air France v. ...
2008-11-18 - Informations relatives au litige
D2011-0692; Compagnie Gervais danone v. Jose Gregorio Hernandez Quintero,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1050). Furthermore, regarding the “net” in the disputed domain name, the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix does not affect the likelihood of confusion, merely because it is necessary for the registration of the domain name itself (The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc v. ...The Respondent has never been known by the disputed domain name and has no legitimate interest in the Complainant’s trademarks or the name (Marriott International, Inc. v. ...
2014-07-15 - Informations relatives au litige
Compagnie Gervais Danone v. Bethesda Properties LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1451 regarding the domain name ; Compagnie Gervais Danone v. Christopher Koda,
WIPO Case No. D2008-1639, regarding the domain name ; Compagnie Gervais Danone v. Edward Brooks,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0330 regarding the domain name ; Compagnie Gervais Danone v. ...
2010-10-27 - Informations relatives au litige