1.

Presenting CYBERDINO’s ‘Daily Domain Name Case Update Series’ #1

Case name- Calvin Klein Trademark Trust and Calvin Klein, Inc. (complainants) V/S Francois
Babicu (Respondent)

Complainants are registered owners of the well-known ‘CALVIN KLIEN’ trademark since 1968
and hold various registered domain names in the same.

In 2020 the Respondents registered the disputed domain name calvjinklein.com which is
confusingly similar to complainant’s trademark ‘CALVIN KLIEN’.

Allegedly the respondent used typo-squatting method to divert complainant’s customers to its
own potentially harmful website.

Allegedly the disputed domain name directs the users to a Chrome-extension download page
requesting them to download anti-virus software which may contain dangerous content.

Allegedly the disputed domain name was used in bad faith having no rights and legitimate
interest in it.

There was no reply on the part of the Respondent.

Consequently the Panel upheld all the contentions of the Complainants and directed that the
disputed domain name calvjinklein.com be transferred to them.

2. Presenting CYBERDINO’s ‘Daily Domain Name Case Update Series’ #2

BEFORE WIPO’S ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER

Case Name- Volvo Trademark Holding Aktiebolag (Complainant) vs Zhichao Yang

(Respondent)

Here the complainant holds registrations for its well-known trademark ‘VOLVO’ in multiple
jurisdictions including China and European Union.

Whereas the Respondent is based in China who registered 85 domain names in 2020 which were
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s VOLVO and VOLVO CARS trademarks.

The disputed domain name wholly incorporated the VOLVO trademark which satisfies the claim
of ‘confusing similarity’.

Some of the Domain name allegedly displayed links that capitalized on the trademark value of
VOLVO or resolved to websites of competitors of the Complainant, or both.

There was no bona fide offering of goods or services, no fair use and no evidence of the
Respondent being commonly known by the disputed domain names.
The Panel ordered for transfer of all the Domain names to the Respondent.

It found that the Respondent intentionally designed a confusingly similar Domain name to that of
the Complainant’s Trademark to attract Internet users for its personal commercial gains.