Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(i) the contested domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) the domain name registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) the contested domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...On the other hand, any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate the registrant’s rights or legitimate interests to the domain name:
(i) before any notice to the registrant of the dispute, his 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) the registrant (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if the registrant has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) the registrant is 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. ...
2001-09-13 - 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”).
...It is well established in decisions under the UDRP that generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) indicators (e.g., “.com”, “.info”, “.net”, “.name”) are generally considered irrelevant in assessing confusing similarity between a trademark and a domain name (see Philip Morris USA Inc. v. ...
2015-06-30 - Informations relatives au litige
See Verizon Trademark Services LLC v. The Helard Group,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0277 (several UDRP panels have held that incorporating a trademark in its entirety is generally sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark).
A finding of confusing similarity is all the more warranted where, as here, the mark incorporated in the disputed domain name is famous. See Audi AG v. Sikes Information Systems,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0128
(AUDI is a well-known trademark with a well-established and widespread international reputation); and Ansell Healthcare Products Inc. v. ...
2013-12-09 - Informations relatives au litige
The Domain Name was also registered by the Respondent in order to constrain the use of this Domain Name.
(ii) Since its registration, the Respondent has offered to sell the Domain Name for USD300,000. ...That mark is included in its entirety within each of these Domain Names, and numerous WIPO panels have found that the fact that a disputed domain name wholly incorporates the complainant's registered mark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for the purposes of the Policy – see, for example, Nokia Group v Mr Giannattasio Mario,
WIPO Case No. ...
2010-08-12 - 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 Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, Panama.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC
(the “Registrar”).
3. ...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” 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”).
...
2024-05-31 - Informations relatives au litige
The Respondent is WhoisGuard Protected, Westchester, California, United States
of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Spot Domain
LLC dba Domainsite.com.
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”).
...
2006-06-08 - Informations relatives au litige
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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”).
...The disputed domain names reproduce the Complainant’s trademark CARREFOUR in its entirety, and imitates the Complainant’s trademarks BANQUE CARREFOUR and domain name .
...
2021-10-14 - Informations relatives au litige
The Center verified that the complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Policy), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Rules), and the Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Supplemental Rules). ...Cf. Bridgestone Firestone Inc. v. Jack Myers, Case No. D2000-0190. (Respondent’s registration of the "net" domain name only was found to be indicia of an absence of bad faith). ...
2000-09-29 - Informations relatives au litige
The Respondent is Bulent Sedef, Izmir, Turkey.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Melbourne IT trading as Internet Names Worldwide.
3. ...The only one that could possibly apply here is paragraph 4(c)(i) which permits the use of a domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. ...
2008-06-25 - Informations relatives au litige
Procedural History
This action was brought in accordance with the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, dated October 24, 1999, ("the Policy") and the ICANN Rules of Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, dated October 24, 1999, ("the Rules").
...Legitimate Interests
Under the Policy, legitimate interests in a domain name may be demonstrated by showing that: (i) before any notice of this dispute, respondent used, or demonstrably prepared to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; (ii) respondent has been commonly known by the domain name, even if no trademark or service mark rights have been acquired; or (iii) respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark at issue. ...
2001-08-31 - Informations relatives au litige
On July 18, 2001, the Registrar confirmed that the disputed domain name is registered
in the name of the Respondent and that the Policy applies to the disputed domain
name.
...At that time
the site corresponding to the disputed domain name was under construction.
The transfer of the disputed domain name to the Respondent took place on December 12,
2000, and next day Mr. ...
2001-10-16 - Informations relatives au litige
The Complainant says that the addition of the generic element “downloadfrom” does nothing to distinguish the domain name from either mark. See Sony Kabushiki Kaisha (also trading as Sony Corporation) v. Inja, Kil,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1409 (December 9, 2000): F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Rudiger Meissner,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1127 (October 5, 2009).
The Complainant says that the Respondent has never operated any bona fide or legitimate business under the Disputed Domain Name and is not making a protected noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name. ...
2010-08-06 - Informations relatives au litige
The Respondent is shidankj of Beijing, China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) (the "Registrar").
3. ...Thirdly, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Fourthly, the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
3. ...
2016-08-19 - Informations relatives au litige
This fact was proved by unchallenged evidence in
AT&T Corp. v John Zuccarini d/b/a RaveClub Berlin (Case
D2002-0666). The Respondent has not denied the assertion in the present
proceeding, either, and the Panelist is satisfied that the subject domain name
is controlled by John Zuccarini. ...The Center verified that the Complaint
satisfies the formal requirements of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution
Policy ("the Policy"), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute
Resolution Policy ("the Rules"), and the Supplemental Rules for
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("the Supplemental Rules").
...
2003-01-16 - Informations relatives au litige
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. AndrewZZZ,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0357; accord RX America, LLC v. Matthew Smith,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0540 (“The addition of other terms in the domain name does not affect a finding that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered trademark.”).
...These actions show that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Telstra Corp. v. Nuclear Marshmallows,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 (finding no rights or legitimate interests where respondent used complainant’s arbitrary mark in domain name); cf. ...
2007-07-13 - Informations relatives au litige
The Respondent is Nguyen Van Hieu, Viet Nam.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Nhan
Hoa Software Company Ltd. ...A reseller or distributor may be making a bona fide offering of goods or services and thus have rights or
legitimate interests in a domain name if its use meets certain requirements, which are described in the
decision Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ...
2024-03-12 - Informations relatives au litige
In State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Rocky E. Faw (Case FA94971) the respondent was found to have no legitimate interests in respect of the domain name where he had neither used nor developed the domain name for a legitimate noncommercial or fair purpose and was not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. See also Leland Stanford Junior University v. Zedlar Transcription & Translation (Case FA94970).
Here the disputed domain name is being used in connection with a pornographic website. ...
2000-12-01 - Informations relatives au litige
Complainant cites two cases that point to this typosquatting issue which the panels in both cases have determined the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar and thus fulfilling one of the criteria for transferring the disputed domain name from the respondent (Vivid Seats LLC v. Peter Smith and Maria da Silva,
WIPO Case No. D2017-1083 and Walgreen Co. v. Domain Privacy Service FBO Registrant / Name redacted,
WIPO Case No. D2017-1550).
3. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name and Complainant has not given Respondent any right to use the Disputed Domain Name. ...
2018-09-04 - Informations relatives au litige
The Respondent’s failure
to use, or prepare to use, the domain names in a bona fide offering of goods
and services is an indication which may be taken to show that the Respondent
has no legitimate interest in the domain name (TABCORP Holdings v. ...The Respondent has not used the domain names
in connection with any active websites. Moreover, it is well-settled that the
practice of typosquatting, in and of itself, is evidence of the bad faith registration
of a domain name (Longs Drug Stores Cal., Inc. v. ...
2006-01-09 - Informations relatives au litige