See, e.g.,SAP SE v. Lakshmi Reddy Bhumireddy and P. Hareesh,
WIPO Case No. D2017-0396; Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. Cameron Jackson,
WIPO Case No. ...
2017-08-30 - Case Details
Complainant further argues that when a Disputed Domain Name incorporates the entire ARNOLD CLARK Mark with only the addition of a common word “motors”, it is still confusingly similar to the trademark and that the common word does not eliminate the likelihood of confusion. 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. ...
2017-08-23 - Case Details
Numerous UDRP panels have recognized that incorporating a trademark in its entirety can be sufficient to establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark. 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. ...
2017-11-09 - Case Details
The test of identity or confusing similarity under the Policy is confined to a comparison of the disputed domain name and the trademark alone, independent of the products or services for which the domain name is used or other marketing and use factors usually considered in trademark infringement (see F. Hoffmann La Roche AG v. P Martin,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0323; BWT Brands, Inc and British American Tobacco (Brands), Inc v. NABR,
WIPO Case No. ...
2017-11-29 - Case Details
Further that, the registration of a domain name in the name of a famous trademark, of which the respondent has knowledge, may in any case, be considered strong support evidence of bad faith.
B. Respondent
(p) The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
(a) Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel as to the principles the Panel is to use in rendering its decision. ...
2018-06-20 - Case Details
See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 3.1.4, which states:
“[p]anels have moreover found the following types of evidence to support a finding that a respondent has registered a domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark: (i) actual confusion, (ii) seeking to cause confusion (including by technical means beyond the domain name itself) for the respondent’s commercial benefit, even if unsuccessful, (iii) the lack of a respondent’s own rights to or legitimate interests in a domain name, (iv) redirecting the domain name to a different respondent-owned website, even where such website contains a disclaimer, (v) redirecting the domain name to the complainant’s (or a competitor’s) website, and (vi) absence of any conceivable good faith use.”
...
2019-08-06 - 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
D2004-0661, se establece: “The Panel suspects [...] that further evidence could have been produced, but it is not the job of the Panel to hunt it out.” Véase también GA Modefine S.A. c. Sparco P/L,
Caso OMPI No. D2000-0419....
2018-11-27 - 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
Mark: PRAXIS CAPITAL INC. (in block letters) together with a stylized “P” in a larger font than and preceding the block letter text, the additional text “RECOGNIZING OPPORTUNITY – DELIVERING RESULTS” in a smaller font than and situated below the block letter text, United States Registration No. 5,289,607; registered: September 19, 2017.
...
2019-03-22 - 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
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
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”. ...
2020-01-29 - 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 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
The Panel notes the following features of the Domain Names and arguments submitted by the Complainant in favor of the consolidation:
- the Domain Names were registered within a 20 day period of time, namely the first Domain Name was registered on April 22, 2019 and the second Domain Name was registered on April 3, 2019;
- the same Whois privacy service was used for both Domain Names, namely WhoisGuard Inc., Panama;
- the Domain Names share the same naming pattern, namely they reproduce the trademark BEOBANK of Complainant, in combination with the new generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) “.online”;
- the Domain Names have been registered through the same registrar, NameCheap;
- both named Respondents appear to be located in Dutch cities, namely the named Respondent of the first Domain Name appears, per the contact information provided by the Registrar to the Center, in the course of the present proceedings, to be in “Amsterdam” in province/state “Noord Holland”, whereas the named Respondent of the second Domain Name appears to be in “Rotterdam” in province “Zuid-Holland P”. As per Complainant, the street names and numbers of the cited cities correspond to real residential locations. ...
2019-08-15 - Case Details
The Complainant refers to the statement in WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.1.4 that "[p]anels have moreover found the following types of evidence to support a finding that a respondent has registered a domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark: (i) actual confusion, (ii) seeking to cause confusion (including by technical means beyond the domain name itself) for the respondent's commercial benefit, even if unsuccessful, (iii) the lack of a respondent's own rights to or legitimate interests in a domain name, (iv) redirecting the domain name to a different respondent-owned website, even where such website contains a disclaimer, (v) redirecting the domain name to the complainant's (or a competitor's) website, and (vi) absence of any conceivable good faith use" and submits that all those criteria apply in the present case.
...
2018-03-16 - Case Details
Complainant further argues that when a Disputed Domain Name incorporates an entire trademark with only the addition of the non-distinctive phrase “LLC” or the gTLD “.com”, it is still confusingly similar to the trademark. See, F.Hoffmann-La Roche 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. ...
2018-03-12 - Case Details
John Adem,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1480; Gordon Sumner, p/k/a Sting v. Michael Urvan,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0596; The E.W. Scripps Company v. Sinologic Industries,
WIPO Case No. ...
2018-01-26 - Case Details