Recent Case Activity

Displaying results 101 - 200 of 8194 matches
20|50|100 results per page
Case Number Domain(s) Complainant Respondent Ruleset Status
1997018
addeparr.com
Addepar, Inc.Bad Boy, envestnettUDRP20-Jun-2022
that Respondent's inactive holding of the disputed domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use The Panel agrees that the passive holding of a domain name does not necessarily circumvent a finding that the domain name is being used
104554
spie-batignolles-nord.com
SPIE BATIGNOLLESspie batignolles17-Jun-2022
content which constitutes passive holding Registration and passive holding of a domain name which has no other legitimate use and clearly refers to the Complainant's trademark may constitute registration and use in bad faith RESPONDENT The
104602
hellobank.online
BNP PARIBASTaS Box17-Jun-2022
and accordingly it is being passively held Such passive holding does not allow the Respondent to escape a finding of registration and use in bad faith in circumstances where the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant s mark where
104557
novartis-india.com
Novartis AGNOVARTIS INDIA LIMITED17-Jun-2022
factors when applying the passive holding doctrine 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
1996026
bitmexlogin.link
HDR Global Trading LimitedDuong Phu ToanUDRP16-Jun-2022
of another The Respondent is passively holding the Domain Name Passive holding of a domain name containing a mark with a reputation without legitimate excuse is bad faith registration and use See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows
1995563
execshareworks.com
Solium Capital ULCJay White / JAY N SONS LLCUDRP16-Jun-2022
name in bad faith through its passive holding of the domain and the causation of initial interest confusion   DISCUSSION Paragraph 15 a of the Rules instructs this Panel to decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted
1996222
asia-nasdaq.com
Nasdaq, Inc.Wei \u502b WangUDRP15-Jun-2022
this Panel finds that such passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes use in bad faith for the purposes of the Policy There is no reason as to why Respondent would passively hold the disputed domain name Respondent has no rights or
104552
bollore-transport-loqistics.com
BOLLORE SEIsidoros Garifalakis14-Jun-2022
name is the subject of a passive holding which demonstrates the use in bad faith of Respondent Previous panels have found that such behaviour was evidence that Respondent was showing disputed domain name registration and use in bad faith see
1996670
amazon2aws.com
Amazon Technologies, Inc.Nice IT Services Group Inc. / Customer Domain AdminUDRP10-Jun-2022
the trademarks of another Passive holding of a domain name containing marks with a reputation can be bad faith registration and use See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000   The Respondent has been the
1995306
morganstanleyhuaxin.co
Morgan StanleyJuan LiuUDRP10-Jun-2022
the Panel finds so-called passive holding in bad faith and so finds registration in bad faith in line with the principles first enunciated in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000   The Panel finds that
104543
intesasanpaoli.live
Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A.Frank Senatra10-Jun-2022
faith under the doctrine of passive holding While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness or
104540
arcelormittal-buyer.com
ARCELORMITTAL (SA)Fastloc Inc08-Jun-2022
this Panel shares that the passive holding of a domain name with knowledge that the domain name infringes another party s trade mark rights may in itself be regarded as evidence of bad faith registration and use see for example WIPO Case No
104294
gola-outlet.com
golaphilippines.com
golapolska.com
[1 MORE]
D. Jacobson & Sons LimitedWeb Commerce Communications Limited08-Jun-2022
faith under the doctrine of passive holding In this regard the Panel is convinced that the current use of the domain name gola-outlet.com cannot be considered in good faith due to the following aspects i distinctiveness of the GOLA s trademarks
104542
intesasp.live
Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A.Domenico Vitali08-Jun-2022
4 b and that its continued holding is in bad faith The Complainant reminds the Panel that the consensus view of WIPO UDRP panelists is that passive holding of a disputed domain name may in appropriate circumstances be consistent with a finding
1996183
codesys.site
CODESYS Development GmbHNot ApplicableURS06-Jun-2022
faith under the doctrine of passive holding While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness or
104515
cosmoprof-lasvegas.com
BolognaFiere Cosmoprof S.p.A.Sensations Marcom Pvt. Ltd03-Jun-2022
an active website but it is passively held as per the so called ‘passive holding doctrine The Complainant further contends that the circumstance that cosmoprof-lasvegas.com resolves to an inactive website leads to a finding of bad faith In this
1994278
opploansmyoffer.com
Opportunity Financial, LLCWarut ChuaynooUDRP02-Jun-2022
the at-issue domain name passively Browsing to opploansmyoffer.com returns the message This site can't be reached Respondent's passive holding of the at-issue domain name is not indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under
104529
arcelormittal-inquiries.com
arcelormittal-purchase.com
arcelormittalbuy.com
ARCELORMITTAL (SA)bill chill02-Jun-2022
faith under the doctrine of passive holding see for example CAC Case No Amedei S.r.l v sun xin supra The factors that are typically considered when applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the
104446
youswitch.biz
uSwitch LimitedMy Switch LTD02-Jun-2022
so this is not a case of passive holding This is not a typosquatting case either The Respondent said it had its own reasons for wanting it due to its reference to the Yolanda Origin Unified Switch It has years of use and this implicates all
104546
intesasanpaolo-sicura.online
Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A.Petro Milici01-Jun-2022
decisions confirmed that the passive holding of a domain name with knowledge that the domain name infringes another party s trademark rights is evidence of bad faith registration and use The Complainant states that the consensus view of WIPO UDRP
1994573
carilionclinicmemorial.org
Carilion ClinicJm kentUDRP30-May-2022
this Panel finds that the passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes use in bad faith for the purposes of this Complaint   This finding is supported by the fact that Responded availed of a privacy service to conceal his identity on
104528
arcselormittal.com
ARCELORMITTAL (SA)Jacob Slaten30-May-2022
panels have discussed the passive holding of domain names e.g in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and found that the passive holding itself can constitute bad faith use The Panel recalls that „the
104498
lyondellchemienederland.com
LyondellBasell Industries Holdings B.V.Steven Smith27-May-2022
LyondellBasell Industries Holdings B.V and Lyondell Chemical Company are two of these affiliated companies under the umbrella of LyondellBasell Group it notes that t he Complainant of this administrative proceeding is LyondellBasell Industries
104534
boursorama.one
BOURSORAMA SA1337 Services LLC27-May-2022
disputed domain name is being passively held by the Respondent and is inactive and when searched for generates a message that states that the website cannot be found This Panel finds therefore that such passive holding allows this Panel to make a
104486
secure-bourso.com
BOURSORAMA SA121 Av. Paul Vaillant Couturier27-May-2022
in respect of the passive holding of the disputed domain name by the Respondent and on the configuration of MX servers for the future purpose of e-mail by the Respondent for which evidence was supplied by the Complainant asking that the
104517
arcelormittalro.com
globalarcelormittal.com
ARCELORMITTAL S.A.Fastloc Inc27-May-2022
faith under the doctrine of passive holding In the WIPO Case No D2006-1440 National Football League v Thomas Trainer the Panel stated when a registrant such as the Respondent here obtains a domain name that is confusingly similar to a famous mark
1993946
morganstaleny.com
Morgan Stanleypaul goodrichUDRP26-May-2022
can't be reached Respondent's passive holding of the at-issue domain name is not indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶¶ 4 c i nor of a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4 c iii See Kohler Co v xi long chen
104518
arcelormittal-online.com
ARCELORMITTAL S.A.bill chill26-May-2022
certain circumstances the passive holding of a domain name cannot prevent a finding of bad faith Factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the
1995584
morganstanley-futures.com
morganstanleyfutures.net
morganstanleyqh.com
[2 MORE]
Morgan StanleyAnYaWei / Wu Xue Fei / HeJieJunUDRP25-May-2022
3.0 2.1   MORGAN STANLEY   passive holding Teachers Ins and Annuity Ass'n of Am Wreaks Commc'ns Group WIPO D2006-0483 TMP Int'l Inc v Baker Enters FA 204112 Forum Dec 6 2003   Pfizer Inc and Pfizer Enterprises SARL v Domain Purchase FA 328187
1990823
homedepotcustomercenter.com
Home Depot Product Authority, LLCDomain Owner / Knowbe4UDRP25-May-2022
indicia of bad faith such as passive holding failure to respond to a complaint installation of malware typosquatting etc.  The Panel is not persuaded.  Respondent's wrongful appropriation of Complainant's mark amounts to taking advantage of a
1993722
bitmex.fund
HDR Global Trading LimitedNicolai DahlUDRP24-May-2022
of another The Respondent is passively holding the Domain Name Passive holding of a domain name containing a mark with a reputation without legitimate excuse is bad faith registration and use See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows
1992955
avalonmetroproperties.com
AvalonBay Communities, Inc.Edgard Lacayo / Avalon Metro PropertiesUDRP23-May-2022
related business Respondent's passive holding of avalonmetroproperties.com shows Respondent's bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4 a iii See Regions Bank v Darla atkins FA 1786409 Forum June 20 2018 Respondent registered and is using the
104512
ksb-ah.com
ksbah.com
KSB SE & Co. KGaAAnhui Kai Shi Pump Co., Ltd.24-May-2022
According to the doctrine of passive holding the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith see e.g paragraph 3.3 of the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No
104489
lovehoney.club
lovehoney.design
lovehoney.ink
Lovehoney Group Limited Wu Ze Xin23-May-2022
iv above and paragraph 3.3 passive holding of the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 to form the Panel's view on the use of the disputed domain names under this Policy ground In the Panel s assessment the factors which attach weight to the
104513
cosmoproflasvegas.com
BolognaFiere Cosmoprof S.p.A.Sensations Marcom Pvt. Ltd23-May-2022
that the Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name a potential ground for a finding of bad faith Factors relevant to the application of the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness of reputation of the
104501
saintgobainbarracas.com
COMPAGNIE DE SAINT-GOBAINJuan Salvador Tozzini23-May-2022
to an active web site i.e is passively held As established in a number of prior cases the concept of bad faith use in paragraph 4 b of the Policy includes not only positive action but also passive holding especially in cases of domain name
1993824
cloud-workday.com
Workday, Inc.Sunny Neo, MandiantUDRP20-May-2022
of another The Respondent is passively holding the Domain Name Passive holding of a domain name containing a well-known mark without legitimate excuse is bad faith registration and use See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows
D2021-4420
pradagroup.agency
Prada S.A.Whois Privacy, Private by Design, LLC / Eric Hanson09-May-2022
disputed domain name is being passively held As found in section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 f rom the inception of the UDRP panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of
104500
saint-goibain.com
COMPAGNIE DE SAINT-GOBAINjackson williams19-May-2022
and accordingly it is being passively held Such passive holding does not allow the Respondent to escape a finding of registration and use in bad faith in circumstances where as here the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the
1992406
sweatybetty-australia.com
sweatybetty-nz.com
sweatybettyblackfriday.com
[13 MORE]
Lady of Leisure Holdings LimitedClient Care / Web Commerce Communications LimitedUDRP18-May-2022
domain names are being passively held by Respondent their current use or lack thereof does not diminish the effect of their prior use to pose as and compete with Complainant Even if it did Respondent's passive holding is in itself an
1991413
wex.com
WEX Inc.Tom SoulanilleUDRP16-May-2022
In particular Respondent's passive holding of the domain name is proof that it lacks any right or legitimate interest in the domain name 8.    Respondent also does not have rights or legitimate interests in the wex.com domain name because
104434
arcelormittal-romania.com
ARCELORMITTAL (SA)bill chill16-May-2022
notes that the so-called passive holding of a domain name cannot prevent a finding of bad faith In this present case the Complainant's trademark is highly distinctive and there seems no plausible good faith use for the disputed domain name
104463
support-boursorama-particulier.com
BOURSORAMA SAEl drissi Rayon13-May-2022
contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith see Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd v Whois Agent Whois Privacy Protection Service Inc / Jean-Paul Clozel WIPO Case No D2016-0068 Telstra Corporation Limited
1992112
bitmexpay.com
HDR Global Trading LimitedShawn Wilderom / CCCTraderUDRP11-May-2022
the Panel finds Respondent's passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of paragraph 4 a iii that the bitmex.site domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith by Respondent   Accordingly the Panel finds that
1991631
targetpayandbenefits.bid
targetpayandbenefits.biz
targetpayandbenefits.me
[4 MORE]
Target Brands, Inc.Simon Rahman / Yousuf MamunUDRP11-May-2022
faith under the doctrine of passive holding.  While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness
1988843
sezzle.co
Sezzle Inc.Charles Youakim / Sezzle Inc.UDRP11-May-2022
domain name a practice called passive holding   Because Respondent makes no active use of the domain name it cannot be said to use it in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services within the contemplation of Policy¶4 c i   See for
1991544
sezzle.us
Sezzle Inc.Charles Youakim / Sezzle Inc.USDRP10-May-2022
domain name a practice called passive holding   Because Respondent makes no active use of the domain name it cannot be said to use it in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services within the contemplation of Policy¶4 c ii   See for
1991563
commscopemeta.com
CommScope, Inc. of North CarolinaZhao Zhi CongUDRP10-May-2022
of a given case including passive holding in making its bad faith analysis.  See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows Case No D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000 after considering all the circumstances of a given case it is possible that
104480
securite-boursorama.com
BOURSORAMA SA1337 Services LLC10-May-2022
contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith Examples of what may be cumulative circumstances found to be indicative of bad faith include that no response to the complaint has been filed and the
104459
intesa-eu.com
Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A.Stephane Teboul10-May-2022
Complainant argues that the passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name is consistent with a finding of bad faith It relies on the Telstra decision Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and on the panels
104468
lntesawebaccesso.com
Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A.Gino Monsignore10-May-2022
domain name is currently held passively does not change this If this fact were to support the Respondent trademark owners would not be able to enforce their trademark rights in a situation such as the one at hand The Panel at least in this kind of
104483
igpdecauxmedia.com
JCDECAUX SAPaolo Valdem09-May-2022
name is available for sale passive holding is sufficient to demonstrate bad faith use This in particular due to the reputation of the Complainant trademarks and the fact that it is not possible to conceive of any plausible good faith use of such
104426
chianticlassico.website
Consorzio Vino Chianti ClassicoFabio Baccilli09-May-2022
faith under the doctrine of passive holding The Panel agrees that the passive holding of chianticlassico.website without any reasonable explication by the Respondent constitutes a use in bad faith of the domain name for the purposes of the Policy
1989867
airlifcompany.com
airliftscompany.com
airsliftcompany.com
Air Lift Companyhermanrademan / Paul Russo / Encompass CorporationUDRP05-May-2022
to a finding of so-called passive holding in bad faith in line with the principles first enunciated in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000   Returning to the domain name paragraph 4 b of the Policy
1989816
compassmineralsinc.com
Compass Minerals International, Inc.Compass MineralsUDRP04-May-2022
The Panel agrees that the passive holding of a domain name does not necessarily circumvent a finding that the domain name is being used in bad faith within the requirements of paragraph 4 a iii of the Policy.  See Telstra Corporation Limited v
104474
chianticlassicocollection.com
Consorzio Vino Chianti Classicowen qiong tang04-May-2022
faith under the doctrine of passive holding The Panel agrees that passive holding of a domain name incorporating a famous trademark constitutes use of the domain name in bad faith and the ignorance of the previous notice further evince the use of
104447
clientboursorama.com
BOURSORAMA SAChristian Soulier04-May-2022
as good faith use either Passive holding can amount to bad faith use as there is no circumstances in which the use of the disputed domain name could be legitimate given Complainant s reputation The Panel thus considers that the disputed domain
104456
secure-boursorama.com
BOURSORAMA SA121 Av. Paul Vaillant Couturier04-May-2022
Complaint the Respondent was passively holding the disputed domain name Such passive holding is not in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services nor is a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name The
104465
intesa-online.com
intesa-online.org
Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A.Gabriella Campora03-May-2022
contact the trademark holder passive holding does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith Examples of what may be cumulative circumstances found to be indicative of bad faith include cases in which i the Complainant has a well-known trademark
1990644
bloombergstory.com
Bloomberg Finance L.P.Digvijay SinghUDRP02-May-2022
faith under the doctrine of passive holding.  While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness
104443
arcelormittalpoland.com
ARCELORMITTAL (SA)bill chill03-May-2022
the disputed domain name Such passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent the Panel from finding registration and use in bad faith The Panel further notes that the undeveloped use of the website at the disputed domain name which
1989491
bitmexu.com
HDR Global Trading LimitedZhu BinUDRP02-May-2022
faith under the doctrine of passive holding.  While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness
1989649
bitmexusdt.live
HDR Global Trading LimitedDa GaoUDRP02-May-2022
the Panel finds so-called passive holding in bad faith and so finds registration in bad faith in line with the principles first enunciated in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows D2000-0003 WIPO Feb 18 2000   The Panel finds that
104437
id-boursorama.com
user-boursorama.com
users-boursorama.com
BOURSORAMA SAmonstercookies02-May-2022
to bad faith use under the passive holding doctrine first set out in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and confirmed ever since Based on the overall circumstances of the present proceeding the Panel finds
D2022-0578
nikertfkt.com
rtfktnike.com
Nike Innovate C.V.Domains By Proxy, LLC / jonathan benloulou27-Apr-2022
of the Domain Names Moreover passive holding of a domain name does not rule out a finding of bad faith use B Respondent The Respondent sent informal communications to the Center on February 22 2022 and on February 24 2022 inquiring about the
D2022-0536
group-safran.com
SafranContact Privacy Inc. Customer 12410201175 / TELESPHORE LAUREAL15-Apr-2022
faith under the doctrine of passive holding See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 For all these reasons it appears to this Panel that the disputed domain name group-safran.com has been registered and is being used in bad faith The Panel
D2022-0405
etexgroups.com
etexsgroup.com
etexxgroup.com
Etex N.V ETEX Services N.VNikolai Sychev / RITA FELDER / Ken Wu26-Apr-2022
faith under the doctrine of passive holding While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness or
104419
softbankfinance.com
SoftBank Group Corp.Jeff Hwang29-Apr-2022
to an active web site i.e is passively held As established in a number of prior cases the concept of bad faith use in paragraph 4 b of the Policy includes not only positive action but also passive holding especially in cases of domain name
104430
brsma-client.com
BOURSORAMA SAJean Valjean29-Apr-2022
this Panel shares that the passive holding of a domain name with knowledge that the domain name infringes another party s trade mark rights may in itself be regarded as evidence of bad faith registration and use see for example WIPO Case No
104410
igpdecaux.media
JCDECAUX SAPaolo Valdem29-Apr-2022
domain name is parked While passive holding is fact sensitive here there are no relevant facts on the face of it and the Respondent has not come forward to explain her reasons for registration and holding In such a case we are entitled to draw
1990115
td-online-bank.com
td-onlinebanking.com
td-onlineservice.com
The Toronto-Dominion BankAlison Madison / brickcode Technology / TonyUDRP28-Apr-2022
in bad faith by inactively holding their resolving websites The Panel agrees that the passive holding of a domain name does not necessarily circumvent a finding that the domain name is being used in bad faith within the requirements of paragraph
D2022-0685
hmrc-paymentgateway.com
The Commissioners for HM Revenue and CustomsWithheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Tanas Pam19-Apr-2022
Case No D2004-0186 that the passive holding of a domain name is insufficient to establish legitimate interests or bona fide use of a domain name The Respondent cannot therefore obtain or derive any rights or legitimate interest through a passive
104420
apps-boursorama-en-ligne.com
BOURSORAMA SAicenow28-Apr-2022
faith under the doctrine of passive holding While panelists will look at the entirety of the circumstances in each case factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness or
1989405
rrdonnelleysonscompany.com
R. R. Donnelley & Sons CompanyKathryn Hostetler / R. R. Donnelley & Sons CompanyUDRP27-Apr-2022
the disputed domain name passively   Respondent registered and uses the rrdonelleysonscompany.com domain name in bad faith Respondent holds the domain name passively Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the RR DONNELLEY
D2022-0617
eiffageimmobilieriledefrance.com
EiffagePierre Naouri14-Apr-2022
not lead to an active website Passive holding of a domain name cannot prevent a finding of bad faith under the so-called doctrine of passive holding In particular the following factors have already been considered relevant in applying the passive
D2021-3935
allbirdsindiain.com
allbirdsoutletnz.com
allbirdssale.com
[6 MORE]
Allbirds, Inc.Antje SCHROEDER Claudia Baecker Daniel PROPST Daniel Walter David Czinczenheim Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org / Dominik Hofmann Doreen Eisenberg Franck Barth Kathrin EICHMANN Luca Foerster Marko Dietrich11-Apr-2022
to the Respondents iv the passive holding of the disputed domain names allbirdsindiain.com allbirdsshoessale.com and allbirdstrainers.com does not prevent a finding of bad faith v the use of the disputed domain names allbirdsoutletnz.com
D2022-0544
agrobayer-pl.careers
Bayer AGPrivacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Andrew Evera06-Apr-2022
name The Panel finds that passive holding may be evidence of bad faith use See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 Furthermore the failure of the Respondent to answer the Complainant's Complaint and take any part in these proceedings also
D2022-0664
axa-bk-groupe.com
axa-virement.com
AXA SA Mrs. Deborah GallettiGbenagnon Agossou14-Apr-2022
AXA SA est la société holding du groupe AXA Employant 153 000 collaborateurs dans le monde le groupe AXA est un leader mondial de l'assurance de l'épargne et de la gestion d'actifs au service de 105 millions de clients Le groupe du
D2022-0625
allianztrade.com
Allianz SE Allianz Seguros S/ALocaweb Ltda19-Apr-2022
that this is a case of passive holding of a domain name as defined in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 and in Sanofi-aventis v Gerard Scarretta WIPO Case No D2009-0229 given that i the Complainants
D2022-0322
vitol-energy.com
vitol-nl.com
Vitol Holding B.V.Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Todd Peter15-Apr-2022
PANEL DECISION Vitol Holding B.V v Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Todd Peter Case No D2022-0322 1 The Parties The Complainant is Vitol Holding B.V Netherlands represented by NLO Shieldmark Netherlands The Respondent
D2022-0537
safrangrup.com
SafranContact Privacy Inc. Customer 12410865194 / Bernauda Romai13-Apr-2022
faith under the doctrine of passive holding The disputed domain name is also confusingly similar to Complainant s domain name safran-group.com Registering a domain name that is very close to a known domain name is typosquatting and is based on
D2022-0492
serenaandlilyinc.com
Serena & Lily, Inc.Hostmaster ONEANDONE, 1&1 Internet Inc. / Brandon Pegues08-Apr-2022
Respondent now appears to be passively holding Pursuant to paragraph 4 c of the Policy a respondent may establish rights or legitimate interests in a domain name by demonstrating any of the following i before any notice to it of the dispute the
D2022-0450
themichelinminivan.com
Compagnie Générale des Etablissements MichelinJonathan Snead18-Apr-2022
Complainant s rights and the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not preclude a finding of bad faith B Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant s contentions 6 Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4 a of the Policy provides
D2022-0738
soddexo.net
SodexoPrivacy Service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / nik haderlie19-Apr-2022
which the panels found that passive holding under the totality of circumstances of the case can indeed constitute a bad faith use under the Policy In this regard the Complainant submits that when considering whether the passive holding of a
D2022-0613
gorgonzola.wtf
Consorzio per la Tutela del Formaggio GorgonzolaPrivacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org) / Spencer Hurst13-Apr-2022
to address whether the passive holding of the disputed domain name could characterize the Respondent s bad faith The WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.3 indicates that ‘ w hile panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each
D2022-0809
bondeulle.com
Bonduelle SAMoses Mawanda18-Apr-2022
under the Policy that the passive holding of a disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under certain circumstances such as the nature and notoriety of a complainant s mark and the lack of any credible good faith explanation
D2022-0526
umicoreglobalservice.com
UmicoreProxy Protection LLC, Proxy Protection LLC / Sharon Mohale20-Apr-2022
interests in the Domain Name Passive holding of a confusingly similar domain name containing a third party mark with prior rights is evidence of registration and use in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s
D2022-0686
uk-hmrc-gov.com
The Commissioners for HM Revenue and CustomsPrivacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Frank Bellucio13-Apr-2022
faith under the doctrine of passive holding Previous UDRP panels have held that the passive holding of a domain name that incorporates a well‑known trademark may amount to bad faith use of a disputed domain name in appropriate circumstances see
D2022-0518
lorealll.com
L'OréalPrivate Whois, Knock Knock WHOIS Not There, LLC / Valerie Harper07-Apr-2022
faith under the doctrine of passive holding See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 Jupiters Limited v Aaron Hall WIPO Case No D2000-0574 In light of the above facts and reasons the Panel therefore
D2022-0688
tf0u.com
Télévision Française 1Valtteri Serimaa10-Apr-2022
beautiful The Respondent s passive holding of this disputed domain name qualifies as use in bad faith in this case Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 The Panel notes the reputation of the Complainant s
D2022-0647
facebooklogen.live
Meta Platforms, Inc.Mostafa Kamel, Big Bear Stores19-Apr-2022
even in cases of so-called passive holding as found in the landmark UDRP decision Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000‑0003 In the circumstances of this case the Panel finds that such passive holding amounts to
D2021-4251
redmito.com
Mito Red Light, Inc.林清海 (linqinghai), 深圳市盈择科技有é™å…¬å¸ (shenzhenshiyingzekejiyouxiangongsi)14-Apr-2022
and that notwithstanding its passive holding of the disputed domain name prior to the filing of the Complaint the evidence demonstrates that the Respondent targeted the Complainant and its Trade Mark in purchasing the disputed domain name The
104416
aarlafoods.com
Arla Foods AmbaDangla Dangla, Duncan Mighty Ltd21-Apr-2022
faith under the doctrine of passive holding The Complainant states that there is no legitimate use that could be made of the disputed domain name and the Respondent never responded to the Complainant s cease-and-desist letter and to the reminder
D2022-0211
nb-india.com
nbshoesindia.com
New Balance Athletics, Inc.Web Commerce Communications Limited, Client Care Whoisprotection.cc, Domain Admin08-Apr-2022
faith under the doctrine of passive holding see section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 The factors that are typically considered when applying the passive holding doctrine include i the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant s
D2022-0687
taxpaymenthmrc.com
The Commissioners for HM Revenue and CustomsPrivacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Trust International12-Apr-2022
and use under the passive holding doctrine as can be seen on Annex 05 to the Complaint the disputed domain name resolves to a website which is inactive As discussed in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No
104431
arcelormittali.com
ARCELORMITTAL (SA)NAVAS CESAR20-Apr-2022
name by its non-use/passive holding The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name because the Whois information is not similar to the disputed domain name The Complainant contends that the Respondent
104412
aroelormittal.com
ARCELORMITTAL (SA)Ben Lopez20-Apr-2022
in respect of the passive holding of the disputed domain name by the Respondent and on the configuration of MX servers for the future purpose of email by the Respondent for which evidence was supplied by the Complainant The Panel
DAU2022-0001
stokke.com.au
Stokke ASWeng Hong Chan, WHC CONSULTANTS PTY LTD08-Apr-2022
the Respondent s non-use or passive holding of the disputed domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith registration or use under the Policy Accordingly the Complainant has fulfilled the third condition of paragraph 4 a of the Policy 7
DME2022-0001
merckgroup.me
Merck KGaAJimmy Kaweekwa, HostGiant Limited07-Apr-2022
has demonstrated bad faith by passive holding of the disputed domain name Such a finding is consistent with previous UDRP decisions such as Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No D2000-0003 See also WIPO Overview 3.0
D2022-0312
meta-calvinklein.com
Calvin Klein Inc. Calvin Klein Trademark TrustWon Sop LEE30-Mar-2022
faith under the doctrine of passive holding Section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 Having considered the reputation of the Complainant s mark CALVIN KLEIN and the failure of the Respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of bona