In this respect, the Panel notes that the disputed domain names follow the similar naming pattern, both
adding the geographic abbreviation “nz” for New Zealand, were both registered with the same Registrar
within a relatively short period of time, using the same privacy service, and the Registrar’s WhoIs information
seems to be wrong and has an astonishing coincidence for both of the disputed domain names, that after the
respective United Stated of America (“US”) state the letter “P” is added, which does not occur in the official
designation of the two states, and these US states are combined with countries outside the US, namely Chile
and India.
...
2022-12-29 - Case Details
Section 3.5 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 states that “[p]articularly with respect to ‘automatically’ generated pay-
per-click links, panels have held that a respondent cannot disclaim responsibility for content appearing on
the website associated with its domain name (nor would such links ipso facto vest the respondent with rights
or legitimate interests)”. ...
2022-12-22 - Case Details
Moreover, as stated in section 2.14 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, “[p]articularly when the TLD is descriptive of or relates to goods or services (including their natural zone of expansion), a geographic region, or other term associated with the complainant, the respondent’s selection of such TLD would tend to support a finding that the respondent obtained the domain name to take advantage of the complainant’s mark and as such that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.” ...
2021-03-23 - Case Details
D2000-0847)); cf. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.12.2 (“[P]anels have generally declined to find respondent rights or legitimate interests in a domain name on the basis of a corresponding trademark registration where the overall circumstances demonstrate that such trademark was obtained primarily to circumvent the application of the UDRP or otherwise prevent the complainant’s exercise of its rights (even if only in a particular jurisdiction.”).
...
2021-03-01 - Case Details
The Parties
The Complainant is HCCI Professional Protective Services, LLC, United States of America (“United States”),
represented by Thomas P. Howard LLC, United States.
The Respondent is Anonymize, Inc. / Jonathan McMaster, United States, represented by Archer Softech,
India.
2. ...
2022-07-18 - 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 registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
7. ...
2021-07-09 - Case Details
The Panel accepts that this showed the intention on the p...
Finally, the Respondent failed to provide any response or evidence to establish its good faith or absence of bad faith. ...
2022-12-16 - Case Details
Ocorre que, para que o candidato possa se tornar titular de um nome de domínio sob o “.br” ele deve necessariamente preencher os requisitos e aceitar o contrato para registro de nome de domínio, que determina, na forma do parágrafo único do artigo 1º da citada Resolução CGI.br/RES/2008/008/P que:
“Constitui-se em obrigação e responsabilidade exclusivas do requerente a escolha adequada do nome do domínio a que ele se candidata. ...
2021-09-23 - Case Details
The Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name indicate that such registration and use has been done for the specific purpose of trading on the name and reputation of the Complainants and their FLOWERS FOODS 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”).
...
2021-09-29 - Case Details
Softech Ltd., DNS Administrator (gold),
WIPO Case No. D2007-1699; and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. P Martin,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0323).
The addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.host” to the disputed domain name constitutes a technical requirement of the Domain Name System (“DNS”). ...
2021-11-10 - Case Details
This raises a question as to the Respondent’s corporate identifier, but does not necessarily by itself demonstrate that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See e.g., Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847.
The Panel conducted Internet searches, including of accommodation and travel booking websites, and did not find any clear evidence that the Respondent was using the name HOSTELITE WORLD before notice of this dispute. ...
2021-09-10 - Case Details
The fact that some consumers may now associate the disputed domain name with Respondent does not render Respondent’s original registration and use of a confusingly similar disputed domain name into a legitimate use. See, e.g., Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847; eBay Inc. v. ebayMoving / Izik Apo,
WIPO Case No. ...
2021-04-23 - Case Details
As regards the past use of the disputed domain name, currently redirecting to an error page, the Panel finds that, according to the Wayback Machine pages (“www.archive.org”) provided by the Respondent (Annex III of the Response), some of them also reproduced in the Complainant’s cease-and-desist letter sent to the Respondent (Annex P of the Complaint), the disputed domain name has been used in connection with what appears to be a bona fide offering of travel agency services before any notice of the current dispute, promoting the Respondent’s own business without intending to trade off or exploit the Complainant’s trademark, which appears to be well known in a different field.
...
2021-12-14 - Case Details
It is well-established that non-use of a domain name does not prevent finding of bad faith.7 “[P]anelists have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding”. ...
2021-12-01 - Case Details
In 2020 Complainant generated more than USD 43 billion in sales as a member of the S&P 500, and has more than 139,000 employees at facilities in the U.S. and around the world.
Complainant owns numerous registrations for the TYSON Mark in the U.S., where Respondent is located, and around the world, including:
- United States Registration No. 1748683, TYSON, registered January 26, 1993 for “fresh and frozen, cooked and uncooked meat and poultry sold separately and as part of prepackaged prepared meals” in international class 29 and claiming a first use date of January 1, 1958; and
- United States Registration No. 2810231, TYSON, registered February 3, 2004 for “beef and pork” in international class 29 and claiming a first use date of January 10, 2003.
...
2021-12-28 - 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 and its SALOMON 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”). ...
2022-01-10 - Case Details
Le Demandeur a un droit attaché à un signe distinctif selon le droit de la Suisse
L’Expert constate que le Demandeur s’est vu attribuer la titularité de la Marque sur la base du jugement du Tribunal de Commerce de Paris du 8 juillet 2020 (p. 68 dudit jugement) et que les démarches ont été entreprises afin de faire inscrire le changement de titulaire au registre international des marques auprès de l’OMPI (selon demande soumise à l’OMPI le 18 septembre 2020).
...
2020-11-26 - 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
unaf f iliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith.” ...
2024-01-05 - Case Details
Section 3.5 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 states that “[p]articularly with respect to ‘automatically’ generated pay-
per-click links, panels have held that a respondent cannot disclaim responsibility for content appearing on
the website associated with its domain name (nor would such links ipso facto vest the respondent with rights
or legitimate interests)”. ...
2024-01-04 - Case Details
The Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name 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”). ...
2024-01-04 - Case Details