The Respondent is Jeff Bradshaw of Middleton, Massachusetts, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Melbourne IT Ltd.
3. ...See The Condé Nast Bridal Group, Inc. v Trademark,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0452).
With regard to the addition of the gTLD “.com”, it is widely accepted that it is irrelevant in assessing the issue of confusing similarity between a trade mark and a domain name.
...
2011-12-22 - Informations relatives au litige
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is obviously confusingly similar to the Complainant’s famous trademark PRADA. The addition of the generic term “girls” does not change the likelihood of confusion; Nokia Corporation v. ...Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has admitted that he acquired the disputed domain name in order to use it for a website for escort services.
The Complainant appropriately cites Motorola, Inc. v. ...
2008-03-14 - Informations relatives au litige
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
...Rights or Legitimate Interests
Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, with respect to each of the Domain Names, Respondent may establish its rights or legitimate interests in a Domain Name, among other circumstances, by showing any of the following elements:
(i) before any notice to you [Respondent] of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) you [Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the Domain Name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you [Respondent] are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
...
2013-10-14 - Informations relatives au litige
The Panel draws the reasonable
inference that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. Further, the use of the disputed
domain name as part of a phishing scheme is manifestly in bad faith (see, for example, Pfizer Inc v. ...case=D2015-1774
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Alia Therapeutics S.r.l. v. Mary Blower, Resallis Therapeutics
Case No. D2024-3789
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. ...
2024-11-18 - Informations relatives au litige
See also Digital Vision, Ltd. v. Advanced Chemill Systems,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0827. Complainant has provided a registration document for its AC ALTINCASINO mark in the European Union which postdates the registration of the disputed domain name. ...See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.1.3. See also Naviswiss AG v. inLink GmbH,
WIPO Case No. D2016-2339. This case raises doubts regarding the reasons why the disputed domain name was registered in the first place, and why this specific composition for the disputed domain name was chosen. ...
2022-02-02 - Informations relatives au litige
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the
Domain Name:
(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant
has rights; and
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.
...The Domain Names registrants did not comment on the Complainant’s request.
Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules states that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that
the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.
...
2025-01-31 - Informations relatives au litige
iv) The Respondent is using the Domain Name to enable copyright infringement of copyright materials owned by third parties. Such a use in violation of established public policy is a bad faith use of the Domain Name (citing Hoffman La-Roche Inc v Domain Ownership Ltd,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0891).
(v) The use of the Disclaimer on the Respondent's website shows that the Respondent knew that his use of the Domain Name would cause confusion with RapidShare's mark. ...
2010-07-13 - Informations relatives au litige
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trade-mark SERGE LUTENS. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant's trade mark in its entirety with the addition of “.net” which does not preclude confusion (see National City Corporation v. MH Networks LLC,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0128 and Baudville, Inc. v. Henry Chan,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0059).
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel must decide whether the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests to the domain name. ...
2009-03-30 - Informations relatives au litige
Complainant
The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer
of the disputed domain name.
Notably, the Complainant contends as follows. The underlying beneficial owner of the disputed domain
name is still Periscope Switzerland, as it originally was when the disputed domain name was registered, and
Name Redacted has deceitfully transferred the disputed domain name into the name of one “Antony Mous”
as a means of disguising Name Redacted and Periscope Switzerland’s continued ownership of the disputed
domain name.
...See, for e.g., The Proprietors of Strata Plan No. 36, A Turks and Caicos
Corporation v. Gift2Gift Corp., WIPO Case No. D2010-2180 and SPECS Surface Nano Analysis GmbH v.
Rickmer Kose / Domain Name Administrator, PrivacyProtect.org, WIPO Case No. ...
2025-04-10 - Informations relatives au litige
In fact, paragraph 3(c) of the Rules provides that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder. The panel in Speedo Holdings B.V. v. ...Nicholas Clark,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0552 and Farouk Systems, Inc v. QYM,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1572).
The other Domain Name makes references and hyperlinks to the Domain Name .
...
2017-05-22 - Informations relatives au litige
See Philip Morris USA
Inc. v. Gabriel Hall, WIPO Case No. D2015-1779.
The Respondent cannot credibly claim to be commonly known by the disputed domain names, or a name
corresponding to the disputed domain names, within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy. ...See BASF SE v. Zhang Xiao, WIPO
Case No. D2017-2200:
“Through either displaying a PPC parking page or using a dynamic redirection scheme on the website at the
disputed domain name, Respondent is likely to have made substantive commercial gain by ‘freeriding’ on the
reputation of Complainant and its trade marks, which is indicative of Respondent’s bad faith use of the
disputed domain name.”
...
2022-03-17 - Informations relatives au litige
The Respondent is WhoisGuard Inc., Panama / Nemanja Krecelj, Bosnia and Herzegovina.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Reyes Campello Estebaranz
Sole Panelist
Date: April 20, 2021
1 See Fenix International Limited v. ...
2021-04-26 - Informations relatives au litige
Respondent"), an entity with its main business address at 622 Manchester Road, Crosspool, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The domain name at issue is ("Domain Name"), registered with VeriSign (Network Solutions Inc.) ...Since Complainant’s mark is also registered
in Class 36 (Insurance; financial affairs; monetary affairs; real estate affairs.)
the Panel is satisfied that the Domain Name is confusingly
similar to Complainant’s mark VOLVO. By incorporating Complainant's popular
mark with the generic term "insurance" - one of Complainant's offered
services - at the end of the Domain Name, the likelihood of confusion is
rather aggravated than dispelled (see Nintendo of America, Inc. v. ...
2002-04-15 - Informations relatives au litige
Complainant states that UDRP panels have found confusing similarity when the distinctive part of a domain name was identical to the distinctive part of a trademark, citing the decisions in Finter Bank Zurich v. ...See, e.g., Robert Bosch GmbH v. Asia Ventures, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0946 (finding no noncommercial or fair use where "there is a use with the intention of commercial gain of the disputed domain name").
...
2011-11-16 - Informations relatives au litige
The Respondent is New York Link, Inc., 162 Fifth Avenue, 10th Floor, New York,
NY 10010 USA.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The domain name in issue is .
The registrar with which the domain name is registered is ABACUS AMERICA, INC.
...There is evidence
from another Domain Name dispute decided by a WIPO Panel (WIPO
Case No. D2000-0822 Gaulme SA & Jean-Paul Gaultier SA v. ...
2002-03-19 - Informations relatives au litige
The Respondent is Mr. Zhu, TUNGKIN INDUSTRY Co.Ltd, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The Panel notes that the Complainant’s trademarks for ROCKWOOL were already internationally well known on the date of creation of the disputed domain name, i.e., August 2, 2013, see for instance Rockwool International A/S v. Siroc,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1757 and Rockwool International A/S v. kaka toys,
WIPO Case No. ...
2020-10-14 - Informations relatives au litige
The Respondent is Punnusamy Arulmorzhi, Research, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with
GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant must prove on the balance of probabilities both that the Disputed Domain Name was
registered in bad faith and that it is being used in bad faith (see section 4.2 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and,
for example, Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2023-06-26 - Informations relatives au litige
While failure to respond does not present conclusive evidence against the Respondent and the burden of proof lies with the Complainant, the Panel did consider this factor as further proof of the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name (See Nokia Corporation v. Firdaus Adinegoro/Beli Hosting,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0814).
The disputed domain name is being used in connection with the offering of goods, which are under-floor radiators. ...Without some substantial evidence to indicate that Complainant approved of or condoned Respondent’s use of his mark in the disputed domain name, the Panel is not prepared to import a bar against his cause of action.” (See Tom Cruise v. ...
2008-03-25 - Informations relatives au litige
The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Name.com, Inc.
...There are no rights or legitimate interests held by the Respondent in respect of the Domain Name. The
Respondent is not commonly known as the Domain Name nor does the Respondent have any authorization
from the Complainant to register the Domain Name. ...
2022-07-14 - Informations relatives au litige
The Respondent has never been known by the disputed domain name and has no legitimate interests in the SWAROVSKI trademarks or the name “Swarovski”.
The disputed domain name is being used to advertise purported Swarovski products and the disputed domain name misdirects Internet traffic to the disputed domain name. Such a use is contrary to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate interest in the domain name.
The disputed domain name is an infringement of the SWAROVSKI trademarks and no bona fide use is being made of the disputed domain name. ...
2012-09-03 - Informations relatives au litige