Relevant Decisions

Belfius Assurances SA / Belfius Verzekeringen NV v. Miguel Valladares, WIPO D2024-4193, <dvv-services.com>, Denied

The Panel’s own searches of DVV and DVV services via Google return results for a DVV Media, apparently a global publishing house, a Finnish digital and population data services agency, DVV Entertainment which appears to be a film production company, “DVV International: Education for Everyone”.  There are also three images under the Heading Images on the first results page;  two of which are for DVV Entertainment and the middle one features the Complainant’s logo from the site “Wikidata”. It is of course possible that the Respondent did in fact have knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark.  However, the Panel is not prepared to infer that the Respondent did in fact have such knowledge on the information before the Panel.

Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG v. gabriel araujo, CAC-UDRP-106723 (2024), <quizzlindt.com>, Transfer

The disputed domain name does not resolve to any active website. UDRP panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding (see in particular Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No. D2000-0003)… Taken into account all circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that 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 an infringement of the Complainant’s trademark under trademark law, a passing off, or an infringement of consumer protection legislation.

Netflix, Inc. v. John Paul Tano, WIPO Case No. D2024-1149, <netflixproductions.com>, Transfer

Further, although the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website, as in the leading case of Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, there is no conceivable active use that could be made of the disputed domain name that would not amount to an infringement of the Complainant’s rights in its NETFLIX mark.

Sanofi v. Nate Zhang, WIPO Case No. DAI2023-0026, <sanofi.ai>, Transfer

Each of these considerations points to the Respondent’s passive holding of the disputed domain name being in bad faith. Specifically: (i) the Complainant’s trademark is distinctive and well established; (ii) the Respondent has failed to submit any claims or evidence of good-faith use; (iii) the absence of any relationship between the Respondent and the Complainant; and, (iv) given the confusing similarity to the Complainant’s trademark, there is no conceivable good faith use to which the disputed domain name could be put by the Respondent, that would not result in creating a misleading impression of association with the Complainant.

Biofarma v. Taiwo Oni, CAC-UDRP-106585 (2024), <wegocoveram.com>, Denied

The Complainant relied on the “passive holding doctrine” and one of the important criteria of passive holding is “the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put“.

The Panel conducted its own independent research for the term “wegocoveram” in “Google” in accordance with Rule 10 of the UDRP Rules and sec. 4.8 of WIPO Overview 3.0. …

As described in the Procedural Factors section above, the Panel, keeping in mind the limitations of the “passive holding doctrine”, the Complainant’s burden of proof even in default cases (see also sec. 4.3 of WIPO Overview 3.0) and a limited scope of the UDRP as confirmed, inter alia, in the ICANN “Second Staff Report on Implementation Documents for the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy” (see par. 4.1 c.), conducted its own “Google” searches for the exact match of the second level domain – “wegocoveram” that contained both results prior to the date of creation of the disputed domain name (March 31, 2022) and on the actual date of the search (July 8, 2024). …

Yet the Complainant fails to explain why the disputed domain name does not have plausible good faith use and the Complainant failed to argue that point even in its additional submissions noting only that “the probability of a good faith use of the disputed domain name is still low”.

Based on the above, it appears that there is a plausibility of good faith use of the disputed domain name.

Klarna Bank AB v. Bezdetko Ilya Semenovich, CAC-UDRP-105153 (2023), <klarna-sofort.com>, Transfer

iii) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the disputed domain name may be put – the Panel does not find any circumstances under which the Respondent could legitimately use the disputed domain name that is so closely associated with the Complainant, its “Klarna” trademark and “The Klarna Group” business. Any possible explanation of a potential legitimate use is solely within the Respondent’s knowledge and the Respondent failed to respond and provide any explanations.

Laboratoire Terravita v. Sasha Antanasov, Terra Vita, WIPO D2023-3130, <terravita.shop>, Denied

The Panel’s own limited Internet searches for “terravita” reveal that there are many third parties that use TERRAVITA as a trade mark… In the circumstances, factors (i) and (iv) of the passive holding doctrine are against the Complainant. Given that the onus is on the Complainant to prove its case on balance of probabilities regardless of the Respondent’s default, the Panel finds that there is insufficient evidence of bad faith targeting of the Complainant.

Digest Commentary

• Digest Vol. 4.46 <zoracompanies .com>, Denied
• Digest Vol. 4.30  <qwikqlik.com>, Transfer
• Digest Vol. 4.29 <wegocoveram.com>, Denied
• Digest Vol. 4.21 <fairmont.group>, Transfer
• Digest Vol. 4.9 <barnessa.com>, Transfer
• Digest Vol 4.3 <hackensackmeridianhealth.xyz>, Denied
• Digest Vol 3.36 <terravita.shop>, Denied
• Digest Vol 3.21 <fbsolution.info>, Transfer