The WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO
Overview 3.0”), section 2.9 states that “[p]anels have found that the use of a domain name to host a parked
page comprising PPC links does not represent a bona fide offering where such links compete with or
capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the complainant's mark or otherwise mislead Internet users.”
...
2022-08-12 - Case Details
VistaPrint Technologies Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2015-0886; Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi / “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847).
For these reasons, this Panel finds that Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name was in bad faith.
7. ...
2021-08-17 - Case Details
As explained at section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. “[p]anels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a famous or widely-known trade mark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith”. ...
2021-09-20 - Case Details
Furthermore, the use of a domain name which intentionally trades on the fame of another and suggests affiliation with the trademark owner cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services (Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847; AB Electrolux v. Handi Sofian, Service Electrolux Lampung,
WIPO Case No. ...
2021-12-17 - Case Details
WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.3 (“[A] respondent’s default […] would not by itself mean that the complainant is deemed to have prevailed; a respondent’s default is not necessarily an admission that the complainant’s claims are true. […] [P]anels have been prepared to draw certain inferences in light of the particular facts and circumstances of the case e.g., where a particular conclusion is prima facie obvious, where an explanation by the respondent is called for but is not forthcoming, or where no other plausible conclusion is apparent.”); see also The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. ...
2021-12-09 - Case Details
Factual Background
The Complainant, Equifax Inc., was originally incorporated in 1913 and is a member of the Standard & Poor’s (S&P) 500 Index.
With approximately 11,000 employees and activities in 24 countries in America, Europe, and Asia, the Complainant is a leading global provider of information solutions and human resources business process outsourcing services for businesses, governments, and consumers.
...
2021-12-06 - Case Details
The Complainant Swiss Life Intellectual Property Management AG holds various trademark registrations protecting the SWISS LIFE brand; including the following:
Swiss Trademark Registration No. P-491528 SWISS LIFE, registered on November 15, 2021, in classes 09, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42;
Swiss Trademark Registration SWISS LIFE No. 2P-436709, registered on February 12, 1997 in class 36;
European Community Trademark Registration No. 003438413 SWISS LIFE, registered on October 20, 2006, in classes 09, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42 and 44;
French Trademark Registration No.99823895 SWISS LIFE, registered on November 18, 1999, in class 36;
British Trademark Registration No.1504597 SWISS LIFE, registered on May 27, 1994, in class 36;
Indian Trademark Registration No.1730726 SWISS LIFE, registered on September 11, 2008, in class 36;
Spanish Trademark Registration No.M1622040 SWISS LIFE, registered on July 5, 1993, in class 36 and
United States Trademark Registration No. 3041924 SWISS LIFE (fig.), registered on January 10, 2006 in classes 35 and 36.
...
2021-11-30 - Case Details
Such conduct is emblematic of the Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name.
Moreover, “[p]anels have held that the use of a domain name for purposes other than to host a website may constitute bad faith. ...
2021-12-23 - Case Details
D2001-1185; and contrast NP Factory Werbeagentur GmbH and Nastroje P. GmbH & Co. KG v. Demurrelt Enterprises Limited,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1858.
The Complainant has prior rights in the CAPTAIN FIN CO. trademark, which precede the registration of the disputed domain name by the Respondent.
...
2022-01-04 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts to operate or have investments in 24 countries in North America, Central and
South America, Europe, and the Asia Pacific region, counting with approximately 11,000 people worldwide
and being a member of the Standard & Poor’s (S&P) 500 Index, having its common stock traded on the New
York Stock Exchange (NYSE) under the symbol EFX.
...
2023-03-01 - Case Details
The Complainant is regularly listed in the Fortune 500 Companies rankings and is a member of the Standard
and Poor’s (S&P) 500 stock market index tracking.
Since 2004, the Complainant operates in the United States a free medication program called Gilead
Advancing Access.
...
2023-07-03 - Case Details
The Respondents’
registration and use of the Disputed Domain Names indicate that such registration and use has been done
for the specific purpose of trading on and targeting the name and reputation 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”). ...
2023-04-26 - Case Details
In this regard, the Panel refers to the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4, which states “[p]anels have
consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar
(particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a famous
or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith.”
...
2025-12-04 - Case Details
In this regard, the Panel refers to the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4, which
states “[p]anels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or
confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive
term) to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of
bad faith.” ...
2023-09-14 - Case Details
Further, the Complainant is a member of Standard & Poor’s
(S&P) 500 Index, and its common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) under the
symbol EFX. ...
2023-08-24 - Case Details
In this regard, the Panel refers to the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4, which states “[p]anels have
consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar
(particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a famous
or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith.”
...
2023-09-29 - Case Details
The Respondent’s
registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name indicate that such registration and use had been done for
the specific purpose of trading on the name and reputation of the Complainant and its SCRIBD 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”).
...
2023-08-31 - Case Details
Furthermore, the use of a domain name which intentionally trades on the fame of another and suggests
affiliation with the trademark owner cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services (Madonna
Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”, WIPO Case No. D2000-0847; AB Electrolux v.
Handi Sofian, Service Electrolux Lampung, WIPO Case No. ...
2024-04-09 - Case Details
As explained at section 3.1.4 of the
WIPO Overview 3.0. “[p]anels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is
identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a
descriptive term) to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a
presumption of bad faith”. ...
2024-03-01 - 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 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”).
...
2024-02-14 - Case Details