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
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
Scope of the Policy
The Policy is addressed to resolving disputes concerning allegations of abusive domain name registration and use. Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation v. Bay Verte Machinery, Inc. d/b/a The Power Tool Store,
WIPO Case No. ...Thus the consensus view is that paragraph 4(c) shifts the burden to the respondent to come forward with evidence of a right or legitimate interest in the domain name, once the complainant has made a prima facie showing. See, e.g., Document Technologies, Inc. v. ...
2008-07-29 - Informations relatives au litige
The registrant of the disputed domain name is Camer Media group, Cameroon (the “Respondent”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with
SIDN through Realtime Register.
3. ...Rights or Legitimate Interests
A complainant bears the burden of showing prima facie that the respondent has no rights to or legitimate
interests in the domain name. If a complainant succeeds in making a prima facie case, the burden of
production shifts to the respondent, which will then have to come forward with appropriate allegations or
evidence demonstrating rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name (Croatia Airlines d.d. v. ...
2022-10-27 - Informations relatives au litige
That part of the domain name, which is “nissparta” is identical
to the Complainant’s trademark. The addenda “online” in the
domain name does not prevent the domain name from being confusingly similar
to the Complainant’s trademark: see Barclays Bank PLC v. ...WIPO
Case No. D2000-0163) and Adidas-Salomon AG v. Domain Locations (WIPO
Case No. D2003-0489).
On the evidence the Panel
finds that both the registration and the use by the Respondent of the domain
name has been undertaken in bad faith.
7. ...
2004-09-13 - Informations relatives au litige
The Respondent is Super Privacy Service Ltd c/o Dynadot, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...Complainant
The Complainant asserts the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Mark because the disputed domain name is composed of the Mark plus the mere addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “online”. ...
2020-05-06 - Informations relatives au litige
v. Namesecure.com, Inc., D2002-0270
(WIPO May 20, 2002). Complainant notes that the administrative contact
e-mail addresses for both Namesecure (for the domain name
whois listing prior to transfer) and the current Respondent are the same.
6. ...See Mondich and American Wine Biscuits, Inc. v. Brown, D2000-0004
(WIPO February 16, 2000) (it is "possible to infer from this failure
of use that the domain name was registered without a bona fide intent to make
good faith use"). ...
2003-03-24 - Informations relatives au litige
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), 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”).
...The disputed domain name has only a transposition of the words in Complainant’s domain name .
...
2005-01-14 - 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 fact that there are active MX records available for the Disputed Domain
Name while the Disputed Domain Name resolves to the Complainant’s official website indicates a strong
likelihood that the registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name is to allow the Respondent to engage
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 5
in future phishing or other fraudulent activities (see Callaway Golf Company v. ...case=D2021-1165
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Drägerwerk AG & Co. KGaA v. WhoisSecure / Black Roses
Case No. D2022-1874
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. ...
2022-07-18 - Informations relatives au litige
It is implausible that the Respondent might have registered the disputed domain name without knowing of
the Complainant and its CASINO DE MONTE-CARLO mark. See Société des Bains de Mer et du Cercle
des Etrangers à Monaco v. ...D2005-1342 and Société
Anonyme des Bains de Mer et du Cercle des Etrangers à Monaco v Katie Silva, Peppermill Resort Casino
Reno, WIPO Case No. D2016-2300).
The Panel takes also into account the notoriety of the Complainant’s trademark, the fact that the disputed
domain name is nearly identical to the Complainant trademark and the use of a privacy service to register
the disputed domain name.
...
2022-05-10 - 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
The Respondent is Michel Viyte, France.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Google LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...UDRP panels widely agree that incorporating a trademark into a domain name can be sufficient to establish
that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark for purpose of the Policy
(see, e.g., Uniroyal Engineered Products, Inc. v. ...
2023-03-09 - Informations relatives au litige
The Respondent is Paragon Internet Inc., Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Tucows.
3. ...The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), 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”).
...
2006-12-01 - Informations relatives au litige
D2001-0903). Indeed, numerous panels have held that a domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark where, as in this case, the domain name incorporates the trademark in its entirety. ...Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Ciger,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1675 (ordering transfer of domain name ).
For these reasons, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.
...
2014-07-11 - Informations relatives au litige
Discussion and Findings
The Policy is addressed to resolving disputes concerning allegations of abusive domain name registration and use. Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation v. Bay Verte Machinery, Inc. d/b/a The Power Tool Store,
WIPO Case No. ...Accordingly, and in light of the parties’ stipulations set forth above, the Panel will order the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant. This is clearly the most expeditious course. Id.; Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. ...
2008-06-02 - Informations relatives au litige
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
BA&SH v. Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org / Name Redacted
Case No. D2019-3201
1. The Parties
The Complainant is BA&SH, France, represented by Cabinet Bouchara, France.
...The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...
2020-03-25 - Informations relatives au litige
The Respondent is Prashant Kumar, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with SIDN through GoDaddy.com (the “Registrar”).
3. ...This fraudulent use by the Respondent cannot be considered a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name (Koole Tanktransport B.V. v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / Export Department,
WIPO Case No. DNL2016-0034).
...
2020-05-07 - Informations relatives au litige
The Respondent is Hannah Birtwistle, United Kingdom.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with 123-Reg Limited (the “Registrar”).
3. ...D2015-1168; and Instagram, LLC v.
Zhou Murong, WIPO Case No. D2014-1550). The Panel accepts that the Complainant’s trademark is well
known and that the Respondent most probably knew of the Complainant’s trademark when she registered
the disputed domain name. ...
2022-10-05 - Informations relatives au litige
The Respondent is Ching Ping Lam, Leo Pharma, Thailand.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (“Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...The website to which the Disputed Domain Name resolves appears to promote and possibly offer for sale steroid products which is illegal. UDRP panels have found that the use of a disputed domain name to maintain a website through which it sells illegal drugs constitutes evidence of bad faith (see Hardee’s Food Systems, Inc. v. ...
2020-07-27 - Informations relatives au litige