[i] See MatchNet PLC. v. MAC Trading, D2000-0205 (WIPO ); see also British Broad. Corp. v. Renteria, D2000-0050 (WIPO ).

[ix] See Arla Foods amba v. Bel Arbor / Domain Admin, , D2012-0875 (WIPO ); see also F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Bargin Register, Inc. — Client Servs., D2012-0474 (WIPO ).

[xii] See Alcon, Inc. v. ARanked, FA 1306493 ( Forum ) (The Panel finds that capitalizing on the well-known marks of Complainant by attracting internet users to its disputed domain names where Respondent sells competing products of Complainant is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy 4(c)(i) or a noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy 4(c)(iii).).

The Panel is satisfied that despite the use of different names for registration purposes, the disputed domain names are all in fact registered by the same domain name holder. The following factors lead the Panel to this conclusion: (i) the common features of the disputed domain names themselves; (ii) the disputed domain names promote the distribution of pornography via Snapchat accounts; (iii) the disputed domain names share the same social networking functionalities; (iv) the disputed domain names share the same member database; (v) the disputed domain names share the same social network accounts on Twitter and Instagram; and (vi) the disputed domain names have nearly identical terms and conditions identifying the same DMCA agent. Читать далее →