Relson Limited,
WIPO Case No. DWS2001-0003, and GA Modefine S.A. v. Sparco P/L,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0419.
2 See INTOCAST AG v. LEE DAEYOON,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1467: "For methodical reasons it is very hard for the Complainant to actually prove that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name, since there is no strict logical means of verifying that a fact is not given …… Many legal systems therefore rely on the principle negativa non sunt probanda. ...
2018-02-13 - Case Details
Although currently the website associated with the Domain Name is deactivated, it 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”.14 One of the factors applied to passive holding doctrine is “the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put”.15 Here, the previous bad faith use of the Domain Name and lack of any explanation of possible good faith use from the Respondent make any good faith use of the Domain Name implausible.
...
2018-01-10 - Case Details
Respondent’s trademark application and business name consisting of the CAT name for an identical or similar activity as Complainant’s cannot give rise to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names as the overall circumstances of this case suggest that Respondent’s choice of a trademark and business name was made with the intention of riding on Complainant’s goodwill and reputation in the field of construction and mining. See Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847.
Neither can Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to resolve to a website prominently featuring a logo consisting of the word CAT together with an image of an earthmoving machine and offering identical or similar goods and services as Complainant be considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names, in accordance with paragraphs 4(c)(i) and 4(c)(iii) of the Policy, as Respondent is clearly seeking to trade on Complainant’s goodwill and reputation for her own commercial gain.
...
2018-11-06 - Case Details
The Complainant holds among others, the following trademark registrations:
Trademark
Registration Number
Filing Date
Registration Date
Class
Jurisdiction
SAIZEN
250849
November 1, 2012
November 4, 2014
5
Israel
SAIZEN
IDM000359603
August 18, 2012
July 5, 2012
5
Indonesia
SAIZEN
IDM000339536
August 18, 2012
November 25, 2011
5
Indonesia
SAIZEN
233974
November 25, 2010
October 4, 2011
5
Israel
SAIZEN
40978
March 13, 2010
March 13, 2010
5
Brunei Darussalam
SAIZEN
216174
October 28, 2008
June 6, 2010
5
Israel
SAIZEN
796988
October 1, 2008
April 2, 2009
5
New Zealand
SAIZEN
11962
September 30, 2008
October 9, 2009
5
Philippines
SAIZEN
794161
April 5, 2007
April 5, 2007
5
Chile
SAIZEN
188537
March 14, 2006
August 7, 2007
5
Israel
SAIZEN
003416344
October 17, 2003
April 1, 2005
5
European Union
SAIZEN
V0047295
September 4, 2002
May 31, 2002
5
Iceland
SAIZEN
T0212747I
July 16, 2002
July 16, 2002
5
Singapore
SAIZEN
924923
July 16, 2002
July 16, 2002
5
Australia
SAIZEN
002627578
March 22, 2002
August 28, 2003
5
European Union
SAIZEN
P-498833
March 16, 2002
May 7, 2002
5
Switzerland
SAIZEN
46274
February 1, 1988
August 25, 1989
5
Philippines
SAIZEN
87005731
November 30, 1987
November 26, 1993
5
Malaysia
SAIZEN
T8705664D
November 20, 1987
November 20, 1987
5
Singapore
SAIZEN
175971
November 13, 1987
November 25, 1992
5
New Zealand
SAIZEN
140/1988
November 12, 1987
April 11, 1988
5
Iceland
SAIZEN
445142
May 12, 1986
May 12, 1986
5
Australia
SAIZEN
2P-342551
October 9, 1985
December 10, 1985
5
Switzerland
SAIZEN
4418901
August 25, 2010
October 15, 2013
5
United States of America (“Unites States”)
SAIZEN
4429095
June 2, 2010
November 5, 2013
5
United States
SAIZEN
1820966
March 10, 1993
February 15, 1994
5
United States
SAIZEN
126087
November 7, 2012
June 13, 2013
5
Jordan
SAIZEN
1140775
November 2, 2012
November 2, 2012
5
International
SAIZEN
1063465
December 21, 2010
December 21, 2010
5
International
SAIZEN
781566
May 31, 2002
May 31, 2002
5
International
SAIZEN
549335
February 6, 1990
February 6, 1990
5
International
SAIZEN
507014
April 22, 1986
April 22, 1986
5
International
SAIZEN
022259
June 29, 1997
January 13, 2001
5
Bahrain
SAIZEN
45900
June 8, 1997
June 8, 1997
5
Jordan
SAIZEN
003416344
October 17, 2003
April 1, 2005
5
European Union
Also, the Complainant holds registrations for the following domain names:
Domain name
Creation Date
saizen.us
April 19, 2002
saizen.de
June 14, 2016
saizen-online.de
June 14, 2016
saizen.info
September 20, 2001
saizen.ch
June 20, 2016
saizen.com.cn
February 27, 2003
saizen.cn
March 17, 2003
saizen.be
December 10, 2001
saizen.fr
April 10, 2003
saizen.co.uk
February 27, 2003
saizen.cz
September 12, 2003
saizen.mx
September 25, 2009
saizen.nu
March 14, 2003
saizen.se
April 12, 2006
saizen.it
March 19, 2003
saizen.es
July 22, 2004
saizen.sk
March 18, 2005
saizen.ca
July 6, 2016
saizen.in
February 16, 2005
saizen.co
July 21, 2010
saizen.tw
March 12, 2008
saizen.ru
August 8, 2016
saizen.hk
April 6, 2004
saizen.ie
September 2, 2003
saizen.ae
August 24, 2016
saizen.jp
March 12, 2003
saizen.asia
December 10, 2007
saizenus.com
November 11, 2004
saizenliquid.info
October 24, 2008
saizen.sg
January 3, 2005
saizenresearch.com
February 3, 2008
buy-saizen.com
March 20, 2002
saizen.com
March 17, 1997
saizen.adult
March 31, 2015
human-growth-hormone-saizen.org
March 20, 2002
saizen.porn
March 31, 2015
saizen.eu
June 4, 2006
saizenliquid.com
May 13, 2008
saizen.net
April 3, 2001
saizen.com.sa
October 14, 2003
saizen.org
April 3, 2001
saizen.kr
February 1, 2012
saizen.com.ar
May 5, 2017
saizen.hu
May 29, 2017
saizen.co.il
September 11, 2003
saizen.health
July 11, 2017
The disputed domain name was registered on June 29, 2018 and resolves to a pay-per-click website.
5. ...
2018-11-26 - Case Details
The Panel agrees that this type of change after a Complaint has been received is itself further evidence of bad faith – see the following cases:
Philip Morris Products S.A. v. Whois Agent, Doman Protection Services, Inc. / P. Poon, Enc Electronics,
WIPO Case No. D2018-0823: “The Panel also agrees with Complainant that the change in website content located at the disputed domain name, and in particular the removal of the associated Facebook page, following the notice of this Complaint, further underscores Respondent's bad faith.”
...
2018-07-09 - Case Details
Complainant further argues, and the Panel agrees, that when a Disputed Domain Name incorporates an entire trademark with only the addition of a required element like the gTLD “.com”, it is still confusingly similar to the trademark as the addition of “.com” does not eliminate the likelihood of confusion. See, F. 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. ...
2018-06-19 - 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
See Sound Unseen, Ltd.; Apple Bottoms, LLC; and Cornell Haynes p/k/a "Nelly" v. Patrick Vanderhorst,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0636). Thus, the previous use constitutes one of the indicia of bad faith in the context of the present discussion.
...
2021-06-28 - 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. ...
2020-07-16 - 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. v. Sparco P/L,
Caso OMPI No. D2000-0419.
10 En el mismo sentido Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. Manuel Perez Marquez,
Caso OMPI No. ...
2018-12-03 - 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; Philip Morris Incorporated v. ...
2019-01-23 - Case Details
The Complainant says the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registrations because it was the subject of Sister Sister LLC and James Charles Dickinson p/k/a “James Charles" v. Khanh Nguyen Van, NAF Case No. FA1911687 and currently holds registrations for several other domain names that misappropriate the trademarks of well-known brands and businesses such as Honda Motor Co Ltd and Nike Innovate CV.
...
2021-07-06 - Case Details
D2019-1432, was found to be confusingly similar to the Facebook trademark.
The omission of the “h” and one “p” in the disputed domain name from the consonants comprising the Complainant’s trademark is unlikely to affect its aural perception.
...
2020-11-04 - Case Details
O nome do projeto, expresso no nome de domínio em disputa, é composto por três palavras que guardam profunda relação com o formato da iniciativa do Reclamado: “arena”, o lugar que era palco dos grandes gladiadores, expressão que na releitura moderna é usada para definir os debates realizados sobre os mais diferentes temas; “neo”, o compromisso com o novo e a inovação; e “quimica”, na sua origem árabe e grega, que traz o significado de alquimia, que também pode significar a forte sintonia entre as pessoas ou entre ideias. A Resolução CGI.br/RES/2008/008/P, do Comitê Gestor da Internet no Brasil (CGI.br) – órgão incumbido da coordenação dos registros de nomes de domínio no país –, erigiu, como princípio fundamental da política de registros dominiais, a regra “first come, first served”, segundo o qual o direito ao nome de domínio será conferido ao primeiro requerente que satisfizer, quando do pedido, as exigências para o registro. ...
2020-12-14 - Case Details
By failing to use the Disputed Domain Names in connection with active websites, the Respondent clearly has not used the Disputed Domain Names “in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services” and, therefore, cannot establish rights or legitimate interests pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. As numerous panels have repeatedly said, “[p]assively holding a domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services”.
To the Complainant’s knowledge, the Respondent has never been commonly known by any of the Disputed Domain Names and has never acquired any trademark or service mark rights in any of the Disputed Domain Names. ...
2019-06-07 - Case Details
The footnote to paragraph 4(a)(i) relevantly states:
“For the purposes of this [P]olicy, auDA has determined that a [‘]name … in which the complainant has rights[‘] refers to:
(a) the complainant’s company, business or other legal or trading name, as registered with the relevant Australian government authority; or
(b) the complainant’s personal name.”
...
2019-06-05 - Case Details
Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has provided evidence to prove its rights in the TOMMY BAHAMA Mark by a preponderance of the evidence. See Madonna Ciccone p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847 (applying the preponderance of the evidence standard and finding that “a fact is proved for the purpose of reaching a decision when it appears more likely than not to be true based on the evidence”). ...
2021-06-15 - Case Details
The Complainant has attached a list containing its worldwide registrations for the trademark TATA as Annexure P to the Complaint.
The Complainant is the registered proprietor and owner of TATA in various classes before the Trade Mark Registry, India, including Registration No. 92645 dated February 16, 1944, Registration No. 92648 dated February 16, 1944, and Registration No. 1236890 dated September 16, 2003 for the word mark TATA. ...
2019-08-08 - Case Details
As discussed under the preceding element, the disputed domain name resolves to a website that displays the Complainant’s trademark and purports to provide information about the First Complainant, including details about its operations, products, and p...
The Panel notes that the disputed domain name was previously the subject of a successful complaint by the Complainant, in which it was found that the disputed domain name was being used to impersonate the Complainant. ...
2025-12-09 - Case Details
First, based on the circumstances here, the Panel concludes that the Respondent’s registration and use of
the Disputed Domain Name had been done for the specific purpose of creating a likelihood of confusion with
the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent and/or
trading on the name and reputation of the Complainant and its OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE 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”).
...
2025-12-08 - Case Details