First, based on the circumstances here, the Panel concludes that the Respondent’s registration and use of
the Disputed Domain Names had been done for the specific purpose of trading on the name and reputation
of the Complainants and their META, QUEST, and META QUEST Marks. 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”).
...
2023-12-05 - 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.” ...
2024-04-19 - Case Details
Identité ou similitude prêtant à confusion
Afin de satisfaire la première condition du paragraphe 4(a) des Principes directeurs, le Requérant doit démontrer qu’il détient des droits sur une marque de produit ou service et que le nom de domaine litigieux est identique ou similaire au point de p...
L’expression “Gendarmerie Nationale” est utilisée en France depuis 1791 pour désigner un service public, en l’occurrence une force armée française chargée de missions de police. ...
2024-04-19 - Case Details
Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant submits that based on the evidence of the Complainant’s worldwide trading and reputation under the BDO marks and their “ubiquitous presence” on the Internet, the Respondent would have been aware of the Complainant’s trade mark rights p...
“Most importantly” the Complainant relies upon the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name (evidence of which is set out in Annex O) to create a corresponding email address and to use such email address to pose as the Complainant and to perpetrat...
...
2023-09-19 - 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.”
...
2023-11-01 - Case Details
Here, 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 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”).
...
2024-02-20 - Case Details
Z o.o., Poland, represented
by “Gołębiowska, Krawczyk, Roszkowski i Partnerzy” Sp. P., Poland.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Ascio Technologies Inc. ...
2024-02-07 - Case Details
For example, Switzerland
Registered Trademark No. P-561836.
A third trademark is the “IB button” which is a device consisting of the letters “I” and “B” enclosed within a
segmented circle. ...
2024-01-17 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s JUNIPER trademarks because it
reproduces its distinctive “juniper” term, with the omission of the letter “i” between the letters “n” and “p”,
which makes this a typical case of typosquatting, considering that it is an intentional misspelling of the
Complainant’s highly distinctive trademark (see section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0; see also
Schneider Electric S.A. v. ...
2025-01-02 - Case Details
As far as “grap” is concerned, this element is very similar to
the Complainant’s GRAB mark, sharing the same number of letters and differing only by the final letter “p” in
lieu of “b”. The word “grap” is an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s mark and the slight difference
between “grap” and “grab” is insufficient to distinguish the element “grap” of the disputed domain name from
the Complainant’s mark. ...
2025-06-17 - 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.”
...
2024-03-19 - 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.” ...
2025-03-18 - Case Details
The screenshots, as provided by the Complainant, show that the disputed domain name resolved to a website in the Turkish language, which was used for allegedly offering IQOS, TEREA and HEETS smoke-free products as well as potentially competing third-p...
The Respondent is a real person from Türkiye.
The Panel visited the disputed domain name on May 8, 2024, and determined that the disputed domain name is still active, and the disputed domain name resolves to a website in Turkish which allegedly offers IQOS, TEREA and HEETS smoke-free products as ...
5. ...
2024-05-29 - 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.” ...
2025-04-23 - 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.” ...
2024-11-12 - Case Details
See, Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. v. Ranjan Agrawal and Domain Admin /
Neil P / Indus Domains LLC, WIPO Case No. D2016-2371.
For reasons of economy, the Panel will not recite all of the Complainant’s contentions beyond the fact that it
contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed
domain name, that it has provided sufficient evidence to establish that its ANANTARA trademark is well-
known (predominantly in association with its hotels and spas) and that such mark’s fame predates the
Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name. ...
2024-11-20 - Case Details
Here, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s registration and use of the
Disputed Domain Name had been done for the specific purpose of trading upon and targeting the name and
reputation of the Complainant, since the Disputed Domain Name was used to resolve to a website that
purported to offer financial and trading services similar to the Complainant’s website. 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”).
...
2024-09-06 - 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”).
...
2024-09-23 - Case Details
In this context, the
Panel also 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”. ...
2024-09-16 - 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”).
...
2025-04-11 - Case Details