Merely establishing a business name and registering a domain name to trade off another’s reputation, especially where the Respondent is offering goods and services in competition to the Complainant, does not suffice to establish a right or legitimate interest safe harbor for the purpose of the Policy. Madonna Ciccone p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com",
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847 is instructive on this issue. ...
2011-04-14 - Case Details
In addition, the Panel sees no plausible explanation for Respondent’s adoption and use of the names “allstatemahem”, “allstatemayheminsurance”, “wwwallstateagent”, “whyallstateagent”, “allstateroadservice” and “allstatema” in the disputed domain names and, accordingly, concludes that the disputed domain names were selected and used by Respondent to take advantage of the notoriety enjoyed by the ALLSTATE trademark and the association with other trademarks used by Complainant, with the intent to attract for commercial gain Internet users. See Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com",
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847.
In short, Complainant has satisfied its burden of providing sufficient evidence to make a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and Respondent has failed to provide the Panel with any of the types of evidence set forth in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy from which the Panel might conclude that Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. ...
2011-04-08 - Case Details
Zhijun Guo,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0184; LEGO Juris A/S v. P N S Enterprises,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0170; LEGO Juris A/S v. David Palmer,
WIPO Case No. D2008-1826; LEGO Juris A/S v. ...
2013-02-22 - Case Details
As already found by previous panels, a complainant’s inability to establish registration of disputed domain names in bad faith will generally be fatal to its case under the Policy – and the Panel makes such finding on the record in the present case, (e.g., Finlandia-Uistin Oy v. Juha P. Raatikainen,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0570; Telaxis Communications Corp. v. William E. Minkle,
WIPO Case No. ...
2011-11-22 - Case Details
The Complainant also has not licensed, permitted or authorized the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademark. In Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com",
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847 the panel stated that “use which intentionally trades on the fame of another can not constitute a ‘bona fide’ offering of goods or services”.
...
2011-11-11 - Case Details
D2002-0998 where the Panel held that “[a]lthough the ‘.org’ TLD may have been intended originally for non-trading organisations, its use is not restricted to such organizations and many Internet users are not aware of the original purpose of the different TLDs. The [p]anel has no doubt that the ‘.org’ suffix would not dispel confusion caused by the use of the Complainant’s well-known mark.” ...
2011-11-09 - Case Details
Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, Complainant is required to establish a prima facie case that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the contested domain name. See TotalFinaElf E&P USA, Inc. v. Marylin Farnes, NAF Claim No. 117028 (“In order to bring a claim under the Policy, Complainant must first establish a prima facie case. ...
2012-02-08 - Case Details
Alisia Uzun,
WIPO Case No. D2008-1138 citing Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847.
There is no bona fide offering of goods or services by Respondent. ...
2010-10-08 - Case Details
The Panel also agrees that there is no bona fide offering by Respondents, since there is no indication that Respondents have any relationship to Complainant or are offering products or services related to Complainant or its GARANTI-derivative marks. See e.g., Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com,"
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847 ("use which intentionally trades on the fame of another cannot constitute a "bona fide" offering of goods and services…to conclude otherwise would mean that a Respondent could rely on intentional infringement to demonstrate a legitimate interest…").
...
2010-12-21 - Case Details
Factual Background
Complainant owns trademark registrations for the mark INTERHOME, including Swiss trademark registration number P-470968 for services in class 42 with a priority date of January 12, 2000 and International Trademark Registration number 740788 for services in class 42, which is protected for Denmark.
...
2010-10-28 - Case Details
One matter which has given the Panel cause for pause, is that the Respondent apparently still held a registered DURACELL Community Trademark, in respect of goods in International Classes 32 and 33, when the Complaint was filed. However, in Madonna Ciccone P/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and Madonna.com,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847, the panel said:
“It would be a mistake to conclude that mere registration of a trademark creates a legitimate interest under the Policy… To establish cognizable rights, the overall circumstances should demonstrate that the registration was obtained in good faith for the purpose of making bona fide use of the mark in the jurisdiction where the mark is registered…”
Similarly, in Beca Inc v. ...
2011-07-21 - Case Details
Since Respondent’s website at the disputed domain name contains links to competitors of Complainants in addition to the link to the website of Complainant Haliç Televizyon Ve Radyo Yayinciliği A.Ş., the Panel agrees. See also Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com",
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847 ("use which intentionally trades on the fame of another can not constitute a ‘bona fide’ offering of goods or services…to conclude otherwise would mean that a Respondent could rely on intentional infringement to demonstrate a legitimate interest…").
...
2010-09-08 - Case Details
Moreover, Respondent’s use of one of the Domain Names to direct visitors to a website that imitates Complainant’s own site, with links that direct visitors to competitive sites, evidences that Respondent registered the Domain Names to deceptively attract and then misdirect Internet users for Respondent’s own commercial gain, which constitutes bad faith. See, Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847 (registration for the purpose of profiting off of another’s trademark constitutes bad faith); and ITT Industries, Inc. v Katherine Kliszcz,
WIPO Case No. ...
2012-12-10 - Case Details
Complainant contends that the test for 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 disputed domain name is used or other marketing and use factors. See, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. P Martin,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0323.
Complainant submits that it is well established that the specific top level of a domain name such as “.com”, “.org” or “.net” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar. ...
2013-09-03 - Case Details
Factual Background
Complainants are North Atlantic Operating Company, Inc., and its affiliated company, National Tobacco Company, L. P.1 (referred to herein as Complainant, unless otherwise expressly indicated). North Atlantic Operating Co. ...
2013-07-16 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that:
- Each of the Disputed Domain Names is identical or confusingly similar to the BESTFORM Trademark
because “[b]y virtue of its trademark and service mark registrations […], Complainant is the owner of
BESTFORM trademarks”; “Respondent has added the generic, descriptive terms ‘fr’, ‘lingerie’ and
‘soldes’ to Complainant’s BESTFORM trademark, thereby making the Disputed Domain Names
confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark”; “the terms ‘lingerie’ and ‘soldes’ are closely linked
and associated with Complainant’s brand and trademark, that its use only serves to underscore and
increase the confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Names and the Complainant’s
trademark”; “[p]ast Panels have consistently held that a disputed domain name that consists merely of
a complainant’s trademark and an additional term that closely relates to and describes that
complainant’s business is confusingly similar to that complainant’s trademarks”; “the geographically
page 3
descriptive term ‘fr’, the two-letter abbreviation for France […] does not sufficiently differentiate the
disputed domain name from that trademark”; and “Respondent’s previous use of the Disputed Domain
Names contributes to the confusion...
2025-05-14 - Case Details
Here, the Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed
Domain Names indicates that such registration and use had been done for the specific purpose of trading
upon and targeting the reputation, name, mark, and goodwill 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”).
...
2026-03-05 - Case Details
Proactiva, WIPO Case No. D2012-0182; Mercado
Libre Inc v. P Mercado Pago, Pedro Yukio Sato, WIPO Case No. D2022-0624; WIPO Overview 3.0, section
1.11.1.
Furthermore, the disputed domain name adds the hyphen and the term “us” at the end of the Mark, which the
Panel finds could be seen as implicitly referring to the United States. ...
2025-09-04 - Case Details
Here, the Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed
Domain Names 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”).
...
2025-04-10 - Case Details
Furthermore, the Complaint itself is
contradictory on this point, as it also states that the Complainant filed its intent-to-use applications on March
21, 2025, “[p]rior to its launch” of the club. Further undermining this assertion of use in commerce is the fact
that the Complainant alleges as of the date it filed the Complaint that the Complainant “is a newly
established LLC that will operate [emphasis added] a private, members-only club in Washington, D.C.,”
which implies that it was not yet operating the club at the time it filed the Complaint on May 30, 2025.
...
2025-08-18 - Case Details