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”).
...
2024-10-09 - Case Details
According to the Complainant, the Respondent is passively holding a parked page featuring content such as “website coming soon” and “[P]lease check back soon to see if the site is available.” The Complainant represents that the Respondent has no legitimate trademark or intellectual property rights in the disputed domain name or in any similar marks or names, which the Complaint contends further demonstrates the Respondent’s bad faith in adopting and using the disputed domain name. ...
2020-08-03 - Case Details
The Complainant owns numerous SWISSGEAR trademark registrations around the world (the “SWISSGEAR Trademark”), including Ukraine, among which are:
- International Registration No. 978731, registered on August 20, 2008, in respect of goods in classes 9, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 25;
- International Registration No. 1241212, registered on October 29, 2014, in respect of goods in classes 14, 18, 21;
- International Registration No. 1321437, registered on August 9, 2016, in respect of goods in class 18;
- Swiss Registration No. P-479380, registered on December 7, 2000, in respect of goods in class 18;
- Swiss Registration No. 680267, registered on November 9, 2015, in respect of services in classes 41, 44, 45;
- Canadian Registration No. ...
2020-07-16 - Case Details
In such instances, those users would not be exposed to a respondent’s pornographic content but for that linkage” (Sound Unseen, Ltd; Apple Bottoms, LLC; and Cornell Haynes p/k/a “Nelly” v. Patrick Vanderhorst,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0636).
The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s G4S trademarks. ...
2020-11-13 - Case Details
The Parties
The Complainant is Société des Produits Nestlé S.A., Switzerland, represented by Studio Barbero S. p. A., Italy.
The Respondent is Wen Jianhui, China, self-represented.
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. ...
2020-03-09 - 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. ...
2020-04-17 - 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
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
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 Complainant holds a large portfolio of registered trademark rights in the mark TYLENOL in many jurisdictions, including:
Swiss Registration No. P-408928 TYLENOL, word, registered on February 28, 1994, in class 5;
United States Registration No. 890,360 TYLENOL, word, registered on May 5, 1970, in class 5;
United States Registration No. 1,621,973 TYLENOL, word, registered on November 13, 1990, in class 5; and
United States Registration No. 2,660,253 TYLENOL, word, registered on December 10, 2002, in class 5; (collectively the “TYLENOL mark”).
...
2020-10-06 - Case Details
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; WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.8).
...
2020-09-11 - Case Details
No specific evidence is advanced to demonstrate that the mark is well known or famous. Exhibit P is comprised of 13 trademark registrations from different countries. (The Panel notes this number in contrast to the 650 registrations attributed to the CALTEX mark). ...
2020-12-01 - 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
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).” ...
2020-10-21 - Case Details
The Complainant is the owner of many trademark registrations which contain the word “glencore” (“the Trademark”) among which the following trademarks:
- Swiss trademark GLENCORE No. P-450144, registered on March 19, 1996, in classes 1, 4, 6, 22, 29, 30 31, 35, 36, 39, 40, and 42;
- European Union trademark GLENCORE No. 012054128, registered on January 5, 2014, in classes 1, 4, 6, 14, 22, 29, 30, 31, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, and 42;
- International trademark GLENCORE No. 691954, registered on March 19, 1998, in classes 1, 4, 6, 22, 29, 30, 31, 35, 36, 39, 40, and 42.
...
2020-10-19 - Case Details
This makes the Disputed Domain Name confusingly similar to the LEGO Mark. See, Hoffmann-LaRoche AG v. P Martin,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0323; Dixons Group Plc. v. Mr. Abu Abdullaah,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0843; V&S Vin & Sprit AB v. ...
2019-05-28 - Case Details
Although the Domain Name does not resolve to any active websites, passive holding of the Domain Name does not prevent finding of bad faith. “[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”.7 Among the factors applied to passive holding doctrine are “(i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put”.8 The following circumstances in this case support a finding of bad faith: (1) the Complainant’s FACEBOOK trademark is well-known around the world; (2) the Respondent failed to submit any substantive response in this case or rebut the Complainant’s arguments. ...
2019-06-26 - 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
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”. ...
2020-12-21 - Case Details
states:
“In specific limited instances, while not a replacement as such for the typical side[by-side comparison, where a panel would benefit from affirmation as to confusing similarity with the complainant’s mark, the broader case context such as website content trading off the complainant’s reputation, or a pattern of multiple respondent domain names targeting the complainant’s mark within the same proceeding may support a finding of confusing similarity.
* * * * *
[P]anels have also found that the overall facts and circumstances of a case (including relevant website content) may support a finding of confusing similarity, particularly where it appears that the respondent registered the domain name precisely because it believed that the domain name was confusingly similar to a mark held by the complainant.”
...
2020-04-02 - Case Details