the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH The registered domain name codesys.site is passively held by the Respondent    Even though the Respondent has defaulted URS Procedure 1.2.6 requires Complainant to make a prima facie case proven by clear and

the TradeMark ClearingHouse TMCH on April 16 2014 Additionally the Complainant submits that it owns several domain names including the wording MOBIC such as mobic.info which it registered on July 31 2001 as evidenced by a copy of the WhoIs

is also registered in the TMCH since October 23th 2013 The Registrant registered the disputed domain name bnpparibas.icu on January 21 2022 The disputed domain name resolves to a parking page    Even though the Respondent has defaulted URS

including the SMD file from TMCH and printouts from Complainant’s website it is obvious that Complainant � holds a valid national or regional registration and that it is in current use.” Further the disputed domain name �

the Trade Mark Clearing House TMCH since April 16 2014 Please see CAC Case No 101452 Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH v Whois Privacy Corp metacam.xyz By the time the Disputed Domain Name was registered it is unlikely that the Respondent did not

the Trade Mark Clearing House TMCH for which the last renewal was made on April 16 2014 According to Complainant s further non-contested allegations the term METACAM is only known in relation with the Complainant and its METACAM product and has no

is also registered in the TMCH since October 23rd 2013 � URS Procedure 1.2.6 requires Complainant to prove by clear and convincing evidence each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended � A.��

which is registered to the TMCH since November 26th 2013 Complainant adds that given the notoriety of the Complainant and its distinctive trademark the Respondent was aware of the trademark when registering the domain name � URS Procedure 1.2.6

is also registered in the TMCH since October 23rd 2013 The addition of the term FORTIS in reference with the Complainant’s subsidiary Fortis Bank and the new gTLD ICU or � SOLUTIONS” is not sufficient to escape the finding

is also registered in the TMCH since October 23rd 2013 The addition of the term FORTIS in reference with the Complainant’s subsidiary Fortis Bank and the new gTLD ICU or � SOLUTIONS” is not sufficient to escape the finding

is also registered in the TMCH since October 23rd 2013 The addition of the term FORTIS in reference with the Complainant’s subsidiary Fortis Bank and the new gTLD ONLINE is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is

the Trade Mark Clearing House TMCH since 16 April 2014 and ii all the Google results for the term METACAM refer to the Complainant s product Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks and reputation the Complainant finds it

the TradeMark ClearingHouse TMCH on April 16th 2014 The Complainant also owns several domain names including the wording MOBIC such as mobic.info registered since July 31th 2001 The disputed domain name mobic.site was registered on February 7th

mark is registered with the TMCH Respondent received actual notice of OANDA's rights when the domain name was registered As Complainant asserts the evidence indicates that t he clear goal of the disputed domain name is to confuse potential OANDA

is also registered in the TMCH on February 22th 2019 The Domain Name resolves to a French content in which the LE PARISIEN mark is reproduced Moreover the content displays commercial links from Complainant’s competitors The Complainant

the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH the Panel recalls that according to the Complaint the Complainant registered the trademark MERCK MILLIPORE with the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH on 16 October 2013 The Complaint then goes on to add that the

registered the Domain with TMCH 23 September 2019 and Respondent registered the Domain Name on 2020�02�10 � Complainant states as well that it has not authorized Respondent to use its trademark LIDL or register the a domain name containing it

is also registered in the TMCH Even though the Respondent has defaulted URS Procedure 1.2.6 requires Complainant to make a prima facie case proven by clear and convincing evidence for each of the following three elements to obtain an order that

is also registered in the TMCH since 2013 Even though the Respondent has defaulted URS Procedure 1.2.6 requires Complainant to make a prima facie case proven by clear and convincing evidence for each of the following three elements to obtain an

is also registered in the TMCH since October 23th 2013 The domain name was created on or about August 30 2020 The addition of the dash â€� ­â€� and the new gTLD CLUB is not sufficient to distinguish the domain name from the Complainant's

is also registered in the TMCH since October 28th 2014 The Complainant also claimed that the addition of the new gTLD AFRICA is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is identical to the Complainant's trademark BLABLACAR The

is registered in the TMCH Trademark Clearing House The Complainant further contends that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant s MIRAPEX trademark at the time of its registration since the disputed domain name resolves to

is registered with the TMCH which proves its actual use    Even though the Respondent has defaulted URS Procedure 1.2.6 requires Complainant to make a prima facie case proven by clear and convincing evidence for each of the following three

it had received from the TMCH upon an attempt to register the disputed domain name The fact that Respondent anyway proceeded with the registration and did not show its intention to make any legitimate use of the domain name instead blocking

en la TradeMark ClearingHouse TMCH y el Demandado recibió de ésta un aviso en el momento del registro del nombre de dominio en disputa advirtiéndole que éste coincidía con la marca de un tercero En ese momento podría haber desistido del

is also registered in the TMCH since December 11th 2013 The addition of the new gTLD TECH is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is identical to the Complainant's trademark HELLO BANK Indeed the term SITE is generic

is also registered in the TMCH Complainant further submits proof of its current use of its mark Complainant alleges that the subject domain name wework.fit is identical or confusingly similar under the Policy Complainant alleges that Respondent

is also registered in the TMCH since February 5th 2014 The addition of the new gTLD LIVE is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is identical to the Complainant's trademark FRENCH OPEN®.Indeed the term LIVE is generic

mark is registered with the TMCH Respondent when it attempted to register tupperware.luxe would have received a warning notice from the TMCH as part of its Trademark Claims service.� Despite having this notice Respondent proceeded to register the

is also registered in the TMCH since October 23th 2013 The addition of the new gTLD suffix LUXE is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is identical to Complainant's trademark BNP PARIBAS in which Complainant has rights �

is also registered in the TMCH since June 22 2011 � The addition of the new gTLD energy extension �to the word wiser in the second level domain name compounds the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's

BLABLACAR® is registered in TMCH since October 28th 2014 Moreover the Complainant contends that its trademark predates the registration of the domain name jardiance.app The expression BLABLACAR® has no meaning in any language It is only known in

is also registered in the TMCH since October 23th 2013 Besides the Complainant and its distinctive trademark BNP PARIBAS are known as one of the most famous banks in the world The website in relation with the disputed domain name

the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH the Marks status with the TMCH is VERIFIED 5 The Registrant appears to be a serial cybersquatter as the reverse Whois search result shows Registrant owns 387 domains 125 of which are XYZ domains alone 5 A prior

the Trademark Clearing House TMCH A copy of the TMCH Notice for the Disputed Domain is attached as 2nd Supp Reply Exhibit 1 Complainant s trademark was listed in the TMCH and had Complainant really believed that the Disputed Domain was

Complainant registered the TMCH and second that the Registry Operator for the app gTLD has on its own initiative extended the Claims Notice period indefinitely The TMCH is a repository of verified trade mark information If a party attempts to

at Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for VIRGIN inter alia United Kingdom trademark registration No 1009534 registered on April 11 1973 5 The disputed domain name virginprivateisland.com was

is also registered with the TMCH The disputed domain name bnp-paribas.xyz reverts to Complainant s corporate site at group.bnpparibas Even though the Respondent has defaulted URS Procedure 1.2.6 requires Complainant to make a prima facie case

is also registered with the TMCH The disputed domain name was registered on April 25 2018 The domain name reverts to a website advertising Complainant s IQOS and HEETS branded products The website holds out to be an official dealer by prominently

41 which is duly verified by TMCH The BLOOMBERG trademark is recognized worldwide There are two Respondents in this case who claim to be married The Respondents allege that they register the Domain Name because of their pet which name is Bloomberg

the TradeMark ClearingHouse TMCH since August 27th 2014 and the trademark BOURSO® is also registered in the TMCH since September 8th 2014 The Complainant also owns a number of domain names including the same distinctive wording as the trademark

is also registered in the TMCH since September 8th 2014 The addition of the related generic word redirect and a hyphen before the Complainant s distinctive trademark in the disputed domain names is not sufficient to avoid the likelihood of

has been registered in the TMCH since October 23rd 2013 The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to the above trademark and that the addition of the new gTLD WORK is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain

has been registered in the TMCH since October 23rd 2013 and provided a Signed Declaration together with Proof of Use signed on September 19th 2013 submitted to the Clearinghouse The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical

has been registered in the TMCH since October 23rd 2013 The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to the above trademark and that the addition of the new gTLD WORK is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain

and verified in the TMCH before the registration of the disputed domain name the Respondent has been informed of the existence of complainant s rights prior to the final validation of his registration Furthermore the disputed website

�validated entry made at the TMCH � for the VIRGIN trademark Complainant has submitted a Witness Statement from an employee i.e Trademark Assistant of an affiliate of Complainant to �establish my Company �s reputation in its VIRGIN and Virgin

validated entries made at the TMCH Complainant has a significant reputation in the VIRGIN name globally The Virgin Group VG originated in 1970 and now comprises over 60 diverse businesses operating in 35 countries The VG has an annual revenue of

the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH since July 24 2013 The Domain Name was registered on March 15 2017 The Domain Name does not resolve to an active website 5 Parties Contentions A Complainant The Complainant argues that the Domain Name is identical

the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH since July 15 2013 B Respondent The Respondent is a company incorporated in China C The Disputed Domain Name The disputed domain name was registered on April 28 2017 D The Website at the Disputed Domain Name Prior

of the GENZYME Mark in the TMCH However given that the GENZYME Mark is highly distinctive the Examiner accepts that the Respondent was most likely aware of the Complainant s GENZYME Mark at the time of the registration of the disputed domain

of the TOPSOLID Mark in the TMCH The Complainant has not provided any information with regard to its scope of business activity especially in Switzerland where the Respondent is located Furthermore the disputed domain name is a combination of the

is also registered in the TMCH since April 16th 2014 The addition of the new gTLD CLUB is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is identical to the Complainant trademark MIRAPEX and therefore doesn t eliminate the likelihood

Proof of Use On April 1 2016 TMCH notified Complainant that the Mark was included in express­scripts.xyz the Domain TMCH presumably notified Respondent that the domain contained Complainant s Mark but Respondent proceeded to register the Domain

the TradeMark ClearingHouse TMCH since November 26th 2013 The wording SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC is related only with the Complainant The new gTLD ISTANBUL is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is identical to the Complainant

mark was registered with the TMCH some years before Respondent registered the DDN on November 18 2016 Respondent would accordingly have been put on notice of Complainant rights in and to the SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC mark FINDING OF ABUSE or MATERIAL

the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH the Marks status with the TMCH is VERIFIED On June 7 2017 LUNARPAGES was notified by the TMCH through its TMCH agent JACO Digital that the Mark was registered as a domain name lunarpages.xyz Domain Name The

the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH regarding the Respondent s registrations of the disputed domain names rolls-roycemotorcars.website rolls-roycemotorcars.space and rolls-roycemotorcars.tech It appeared from the Complainant s evidence that two

the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH The Trade Mark is a well-known trade mark in relation to beer and related products B Respondent The Respondent appears to be an individual located in China C The Disputed Domain Name The disputed domain name was

the Trade Mark Clearing House TMCH for which the last renewal was made on April 16 2014 According to Complainant s further non-contested allegations the term METACAM is only known in relation with the Complainant and its METACAM s product and has

s Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH program for the registration of generic Top-Level Domains gTLDs Among other services the TMCH provides warning notices to potential domain name registrants when they attempt to register a domain name that matches

is registered as well at the TMCH since May 07 2013 URS Procedure 1.2.6 requires Complainant to prove by clear and convincing evidence each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended The disputed

is also registered in the TMCH since April 8th 2014 The addition of the new gTLD VIP and TOP is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain names are identical to the Complainant trademark LEA NATURE Indeed the terms VIP and TOP are

the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH The extension vip had a claims notification period from May 17 2016 to August 15 2016 This means that the Respondent would have known of the Complainant s rights in and to the NETBET trade mark before registering

the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH since October 23th 2013 Evidence of use for the trademark has been presented to and validated by the TMCH Complainant contends that Respondent s domain name bnpparibas.信息 is identical to the Complainant s

the Trade Mark with the TMCH The TMCH is a repository of verified trade mark information If a party attempts to register a domain name in a new gTLD which exactly matches a trade mark registered in the TMCH that party is alerted to the

is registered as well at the TMCH since October 23th 2013 According to the Complainant the addition of the new gTLD VIP is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant trademark The

is also registered in the TMCH since October 23th 2013 According to the Complainant the addition of a dash and the new gTLD AGENCY is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant trademark

the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH when she registered the disputed domain names As such Respondent would have had actual notice of Complainant trademark rights at the time of the registration of the disputed domain names in 2014 The Panel finds

period during which only the TMCH trademark holder may apply for registration Beijing time in September 1st.2016 23 00 Shop domain name through advance sale plan EAP to the purchase of.Shop's business and personal.Shop registratio in advance to

the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH so that the Respondent was required to click on an Acknowledgement of Trademark Claim when registering the disputed domain name The above has not been contested by the Respondent Therefore Examiner finds that the

URS 1.2.6.1 i On April 1 2016 TMCH notified Complainant that the Mark was included in the expressscripts.club and expressscripts club domain Domains TMCH pursuant to its guidelines presumably notified Respondent that the domain contained

the TOPSOLID trademark with TMCH on September 30 2013 The Complainant also owns and communicates on the Internet through several domain names of which the domain name topsolid.com was registered on January 18 1999 The disputed domain name

is also registered in the TMCH since August 27th 2014 The addition of the term CLIENT at the beginning of the domain name and separated with a hyphen to the trademark BOURSORAMA® and the new gTLD FRL is not sufficient to escape the finding

the Trademark Clearing House TMCH The Complainant owns multiple domain name registrations including the wordings ingelvac glyxambi tradjenta sifrol jentadueto and synjardy Domain Names Registration Date ingelvac.cn March 25 2007 ingelvac.com June

the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH Respondent registered the domain name silit.store on October 2 2016 Respondent is in no way related to Complainant and has not been authorized to register silit.store Respondent must have been aware of Complainant

the TradeMark Clearing House TMCH since April 16th 2014 Factual Background The Complainant Boehringer is a family-owned pharmaceutical group of companies with roots going back to 1885 when it was founded by Albert Boehringer 1861-1939 in Ingelheim

Trademark Clearinghouse the TMCH With the registration of its mark with the TMCH a potential domain name registrant would receive a warning notice when attempting to register a domain name that incorporates or matches the Complainant s CHAPOUTIER

have been notified by the TMCH of Complainant s registered trademark when it sought to register the infringing domain name yet the Respondent registered the domain name nonetheless in disregard of such notice Even absent such notice from the

the Trade Mark Clearing House TMCH since July 27th 2015 and that as a result the Respondent would necessarily have received notice and was aware of the Complainant s trademark OFEV at the moment of registration of the disputed domain name This

by Trademark Clearing House TMCH This in consideration of the fact that the trademark PRADAXA is registered in the TMCH since April 16 2014 and therefore when the Respondent registered the domain name in dispute on June 30 2016 he was advised of

the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH URS 1.2.6.1 i a Complainant has granted an exclusive license to Seafolly to use the Trade Mark since 1977 Any use of the Trade Mark by Seafolly has been under license from Complainant URS Procedure 1.2.6 requires

the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH since April 16 2014 The Respondent registered the disputed domain name mobic.red on May 27 2016 according to relevant WhoIs records maintained by the Registrar There is no indication in the record that the

the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH since April 16 2014 The Respondent registered the disputed domain name mobic.kim on May 27 2016 according to relevant WhoIs records maintained by the Registrar There is no indication in the record that the

the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH Even though the Respondent has defaulted URS Procedure 1.2.6 requires Complainant to make a prima facie case proven by clear and convincing evidence for each of the following three elements to obtain an order that

the trademark clearinghouse TMCH The Complainant contemplates that the Respondent registered the domain name appropriating Skechers famous SKX trademark in order to suggest to Internet users that there is a connection between Skechers products

the Trademark Clearing House TMCH since 16 April 2014   NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED Rights The Complainant has to the satisfaction of the Panel shown the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or

the trademark clearinghouse TMCH since 03/10/2013 The Complainant contemplates that The new GTLD wang associated with the trademark ARCELORMITTAL may refer to a potential official website of the company ARCELORMITTAL in China The Respondent has

the Trade Mark Clearing House TMCH on 16 April 2014 The Respondent attempts to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website or to the websites linked thereto by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant s mark as to the

s SKECHERS trademark the TMCH warning and the default of the Respondent it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate such as by being a

been registered with the TMCH Trademark Clearinghouse Respondent registered the disputed domain name on 2 January 2015 and renewed the registration on 17 February 2016 Respondent claims that the name EAST BAY refers to a geographical region in

was registered with the TMCH Trademark Clearinghouse These claims are not contested by the Respondent The Respondent did not file a response Even though the Respondent has defaulted URS Procedure 1.2.6 requires Complainant to make a prima

is also registered in the TMCH since February 10th 2014 The addition of the new gTLD SITE is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is identical to the Complainant trademark KINOUGARDE The addition of generic wording to a

have been notified of AML s TMCH registration and registered the DN despite this viii the DN risks diverting traffic away from AML s main website or any sites authorized by them and further risks impersonation through emails ix this risks

was registered with the TMCH Trademark Clearinghouse since 2013 Complainant submitted a signed declaration proof of use as submitted to the TMCH dated 19 September 2013 The Respondent did not file a response Even though the Respondent has

is also registered in the TMCH since October 23th 2013 The domain name bnp-paribas.site is identical to the trademark BNP PARIBAS except for the addition of the new top level domain gTLD site and therefore is identical to the trademark under

is also registered in the TMCH since October 23th 2013 The domain name bnp-paribas.paris is identical to the trademark BNP PARIBAS except for the addition of the new top level domain gTLD paris and therefore is identical to the trademark under

was registered with the TMCH October 16 2013 Respondent has not made active use of the domain names since registration Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use of the domain names under USR Procedure 1.2.6.3 DETERMINATION

the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH The disputed domain name mittal.website is used in connection with a parking page featuring pay-per-click PPC links to Complainant s activities Even though the Respondent has defaulted URS Procedure 1.2.6 requires

the Trademark Clearing House TMCH in February 2014 Complainant has received a notification from the TMCH regarding the registration of the new domain by Respondent Annex 2 Thus Respondent must have known of Complainant s wellknown mark when