About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

Full Text Search on WIPO Panel Decisions

Found 57807   document(s)s (0.082 sec)

Rows

<<  <  51001 - 51020  >  >>

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2023-0254 for virginmegastore-ksa.shop, virginmegastore-sa.shop, virginmegastore.shop, virginmegastoree-ksa.shop, virginmegastoree-sa.shop pdf (425 KB)

The addition of these geographical indications do not avoid these domain names to be found confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks, on the contrary, as the Complainant operates and is renown in this country, the addition of these elements exacerbates the likelihood of confusion. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the First Disputed Domain Name is identical to the VIRGIN MEGASTORE mark, and all other disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. The first element of the Policy under paragraph 4(a)(i) has been satisfied. ...

2023-04-03 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2003-0321 for sothebysweb.com html (25 KB)

CONFUSING SIMILARITY Complainant contends that the subject domain name, , is confusingly similar to both its SOTHEBY’S and SOTHEBYS marks. It contends the absence of the apostrophe from what the Panel shall call its primary mark SOTHEBY’S is not a point of distinction which removes any confusion attaching to the complete appropriation of the mark in the subject domain name. ...While there is no supporting proof offered, the Panel is prepared to accept the Respondent’s contention that registration inaccuracies in the WHOIS record are a matter of inadvertance on the Respondent’s part and that the site has never been sponsored or carried any paid advertising and the Respondent has not been paid for making links available on the site. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to the registered marks on the basis of comparison of the names and, if any authority is needed to support the proposition, I agree with the principles enunciated in AT&T Corp. v. ...

2003-07-03 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2001-0997 for britishcouncil.com html (27 KB)

After reviewing this Complaint, the Respondent admits that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complaint’s alleged mark but refuses to accept that the Complainant has exclusive rights in the mark "British Council". ...The panel finds the disputed domain name is virtually identical and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark THE BRITISH COUNCIL [8]. The Complainant has established this element. ...

2001-10-15 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2008-1025 for sonyholland.com html (47 KB)

Complainant The Complainant contends: 1. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's SONY mark. The incorporation of a trade mark in its entirety in the Disputed Domain name is sufficient to establish that the disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered mark. ...Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules requires the panel to: “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any Rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.” C. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Respondent acknowledges the Complainant's rights in its SONY mark, and acknowledges that that mark is confusingly similar to the Domain Name. ...

2008-10-15 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2000-1199 for farewelltocharliebrown.com, goodbyecharliebrown.com html (49 KB)

b) The Domain Names and are identical and confusingly similar to Complainant’s trade/service marks because ‘CHARLIE BROWN’ is the primary component of each of these marks and each of the Domain Names. ...The Panel determines that "farewelltocharliebrown.com" and "goodbyecharliebrown.com" are confusingly similar to "CHARLIE BROWN" within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. Complainant has met the burden of proving that Respondent is the registrant of domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights, and it has thus established the first of the three elements necessary to a finding that Respondent has engaged in abusive domain name registration. ...

2000-11-17 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2005-0309 for aljazeera.com html (57 KB)

Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (i) The Complainant submits that the relevant part of the domain name, “aljazeera”, is confusingly identical to the Complainant’s trademarks referred to in the Complaint. ...That is because the Complainant’s AL JAZEERA trademark is well-known and has a strong reputation worldwide, and the domain name is confusingly similar to the name and registered trademark AL JAZEERA and is not a domain name any user would choose unless it knew of the AL JAZEERA trademark. ...

2005-07-29 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2003-0095 for voigtlander.com html (53 KB)

It has been established in numerous cases, that the presence of the gTLDs is irrelevant in deciding whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark or service mark. See: Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co v. Taylor, 21 F. ...For purposes of the Policy, it is sufficient for establishing the identical or confusingly similar nature of the disputed domain name and the trademark if there is virtual or essential identity between them, and the Panel sees no reason to deviate from the sound reasoning in the numerous cases on this issue. ...

2003-05-13 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2009-0708 for kanadaegitimfuari.com html (37 KB)

The Complainants submit the grounds for these proceedings are listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainants contend that the disputed domain name is identical to the service mark in which the first Complainant has rights evidenced at Annex 6 of the Complaint. ...Respondent The Respondent filed a Response to the allegations in the Complaint and requests the Panel to deny the remedy requested, namely transfer of the disputed domain names to the Complainants. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Respondent submits that the disputed domain name consists of 3 generic words and as a term it is a general descriptive term, meaning a fair about education. ...

2009-08-03 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2011-0768 for bjp.com html (38 KB)

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The first element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which it has rights. ...RJG Engineering Inc, supra, the domain name was found to be identical or confusingly similar to the name of the German political party. The Panel finds that similar to the Buendnis 90 / Die Gruenen v. ...

2011-08-10 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2012-0244 for powerprepenglish.com html (38 KB)

However, what form that promotion has taken is not explained. 5.2 It claims that the Domain Name comprising its mark and the term “English” is confusingly similar to a mark in which it holds rights, and cites various WIPO UDRP decisions and a US trade mark text book in support of that proposition. 5.3 It asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and claims that the Respondent is not known commonly known by the terms embodied in the Domain Name citing the case of Dell Inc. v. ...However, it is worth recording that had it done so, it is unlikely to have made a difference to the outcome in this case. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar 6.18 Although the Respondent’s submissions on the issue of identical or confusingly similar are detailed the Panel has not found them particularly helpful or persuasive. ...

2012-04-16 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision DAU2014-0023 for arubanetworks.com.au html (39 KB)

The Panel will proceed on the basis that the Domain Name was registered by the Respondent in 2006. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar There is no dispute that the Complainant has rights in the ARUBA NETWORKS trademark in various countries, including Australia. ...These requirements include: (1) the respondent must actually be offering goods or services related to the trademark in respect of which the domain name is confusingly similar; (2) the respondent must offer only those goods or services in connection with the disputed domain name; (3) the respondent must have disclosed its true relationship with the owner of the trademark to which the domain name is identical or confusingly similar; and (4) the respondent must not have attempted to “corner the market” in domain names that reflect that trademark – see, e.g., Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ...

2014-09-30 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2010-1204 for xiha.com html (40 KB)

Complainant The Complainant contends that: (1) The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. Even though the Complainant has not registered the word “xiha” as a trademark, the Complainant has rights in the word “xiha” as a trademark by virtue of its use. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The first limb of paragraph 4(a) can be distilled into the following elements: (1) There is a trademark or service mark; (2) The Complainant has rights in that trademark or service mark; and (3) The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark or service mark. ...

2010-11-10 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2023-4275 for airstreammarketplace.com pdf (255 KB)

Moreover, Respondent argues that he added a sufficient disclaimer after receiving Complainant’s letter in November 2022 and that he improved the positioning of the disclaimer by moving it from the bottom to the top of the landing page, albeit after the Complaint was filed in this proceeding. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Respondent concedes that Complainant has rights in the Mark and that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Mark. ...Respondent 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar B. Rights or Legitimate Interests C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith 7. Decision...

2024-02-14 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2003-0044 for windowscasino.com html (46 KB)

The resolution of this dispute takes place in the context of a consideration of the requirements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is clear that the Complainant has rights to the word "windows" both by registration and extensive use. ...The question is whether the subject domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. Part of the inquiry is whether users are likely to confuse the two, that is, to believe that the subject domain name is affiliated with or authorized by the Complainant. ...

2003-05-01 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2003-0544 for iogen.com html (37 KB)

Finally, the Respondent disputes that the domain name is confusingly similar, and dismisses the relevance of the claims of the Complainant as to instances of actual confusion. ...That the complainant has rights in a trade or service mark with which the respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar In this regard, the Complainant has cited two registered trademarks, one US and the other Canadian. ...

2003-09-17 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2005-0392 for givi.com html (39 KB)

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar: Paragraph 4(a)(i) The Complainants have submitted evidence that they are the owners of GIVI trademark registrations in many countries around the world. ...It is perfectly clear that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to trademarks in which the Complainants have rights. The Panel is satisfied that the Complainants have proved the first of the three requirements. ...

2005-07-27 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2006-0640 for aquastel.com html (18 KB)

The Respondent submits that it is the Complainants who registered trademarks identical or confusingly similar to the domain name. The Respondent states that searches through a search engine on the Internet shows plenty of leads to companies either controlled or associated with the Complainants. ...The Complainants will not be able to throw enough light on the evidence in this case, nor the case as a whole under this proceeding, see reasoning below. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar It seems undisputed that the Complainants have satisfied the first requirement. The domain name is identical to the Complainants’ AQUASTEL trademarks. ...

2006-08-04 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision DCH2008-0016 for migrosban.ch html (14 KB)

Such is the case according to Article 3(1) when the colliding sign is identical or confusingly similar to an earlier trademark and intended for identical or similar goods or services. Such confusion is however not even necessary when the earlier trademark amounts to a well-known trademark in compliance with Article 15 of the Swiss Trademark Act. ...A simple visual test reveals that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark MIGROSBANK held by the Claimant. By registering a domain name which is identical to the Claimant's trademark but for the omission of the final “k”, the Respondent clearly tries to unfairly exploit the recognition and reputation of the Claimant's mark. ...

2008-11-10 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2008-1415 for acompliamedication.com html (15 KB)

Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the Respondent is required: “to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding in the event that a third party (a ‘complainant') asserts to the applicable Provider, in compliance with the Rules of Procedure, that: (i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and (ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.” ...The Panel also has reviewed different sources and documentation to confirm the Complainant's arguments and allegations. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has submitted ample documentary evidence to the effect that it has registered and has rights in the trademark ACOMPLIA. ...

2008-12-10 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2012-1907 for katespade.xxx html (15 KB)

Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name includes many of the Trademarks without any modification or change aside from removing the space between the words “kate” and “spade”, which is inconsequential. ...The Panel finds the disputed domain name to be identical or confusingly similar to the Trademarks and that the first element of the Policy has been met by Complainant. ...

2012-12-28 - Case Details