D2000-1207, Fortnum & Mason PLC v Corporate Business Sales
Limited., p. 8; WIPO Case No. D2000-0636,
National Westminster Bank PLC v. Purge I.T. and Purge I.T. Ltd.,
p. 4; WIPO Case No. D2000-0501, Hunton
& Williams v. American Distribution Systems, Inc. et al., p. 8). Whether
the Respondent has attempted to sell or not those other domain names is not
relevant for the purpose of Paragraph 4 (b) (ii) of the Policy.
...
2002-08-05 - Case Details
Respondent is Tammy P Bailey, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...Steinhardt
Sole Panelist
Date: November 11, 2025
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Reggio Register Company, LLC v. Tammy P Bailey
Case No. D2025-3879
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. Procedural History
5. ...
2025-11-17 - Case Details
ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
VFS Global Service Pvt Ltd. v. Namecheap Inc., Frances P Kump
Case No. D2022-0329
1. The Parties
The Complainant is VFS Global Service Pvt Ltd., India, represented by Aditya & Associates, India.
The Respondent is Namecheap Inc., United States of America / Frances P Kump, Canada.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc.
...
2022-03-25 - Case Details
It is the
registered proprietor of numerous trade mark registrations of marks comprising or including the word “principal”
and a logo in the form of a stylised letter P. For present purposes it is only necessary to mention two of those
registrations, namely:
United States Registration No. 1,562,541 PRINCIPAL (word) registered on October 24, 1989 for financial
analysis and consulting, management of securities and securities brokerage services;
United States Registration No. 5,083,536 P PRINCIPAL (in stylised form) registered on November 15, 2016 for
annuity underwriting services and a wide variety of other financial services.
...The website featured the Complainant’s PRINCIPAL and
P trade marks and photographs of the Complainant’s headquarters building accompanied by text inviting the
visitor to engage with the Complainant. ...
2022-03-03 - Case Details
The Complainant's trademark is partially reproduced in the disputed domain name with the mere suppression of one of the three "P" letters of PHILIPP PLEIN when joining the two words, which in the Panel's view does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant's trademark.
Quite on the contrary: such a suppression characterizes typosquatting aimed at Internet users that forget to type the third "P" in between PHILIPP and PLEIN.
The first element of the Policy has therefore been established.
B. ...
2016-06-15 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
The Coca-Cola Company v. P. Engbers
Case No. DNL2012-0037
1. The Parties
Complainant is The Coca-Cola Company of Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America, represented by NautaDutilh N.V., The Netherlands.
Respondent is P. Engbers of Elst, The Netherlands.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with SIDN through Active 24.
3. ...
2012-07-25 - Case Details
P-436281, registered on December 7, 1995, in classes 39 and 42;
- device trademark EMIRATES, international reg. ...P-436281, registered on December 7, 1995, in classes 39 and 42;
- device trademark EMIRATES, international reg. ...
2013-12-18 - Case Details
The Complainant currently owns the following trademarks in Argentina:
- Trademark No. 1,467,108, P PROMEDON S.R.L., registered on June 16, 1989 under class 42 of the International Nomenclator of Trademarks;
- Trademark No. 1,358,898, P PROMEDON S.R.L., registered on June 16, 1989 under class 10 of the International Nomenclator of Trademarks;
- Trademark No. 1,770,858, P PROMEDON S.R.L., registered on August 6, 1999 under class 10 of the International Nomenclator of Trademarks.
...a fully-owned Brazilian subsidiary of the Complainant) owns the Brazilian trademark No. 818945168 P PROMEDON, registered on November 22, 1995 under classes 9 and 15 of the International Nomenclator of Trademarks.
...
2007-04-23 - Case Details
Consolidation is proper, so
the Complainant’s request for consolidation is granted.
Paragraph 10(e) of the Rules states that a “[p]anel shall decide a request by a Party to consolidate multiple
domain name disputes in accordance with the Policy and these Rules”. ...Consolidation is proper, so the Complainant’s request for cons...
Paragraph 10(e) of the Rules states that a “[p]anel shall decide a request by a Party to consolidate multiple domain name disputes in accordance with the Policy and these Rules”. ...
2022-09-14 - Case Details
The Complainant is also the proprietor of registrations incorporating a device mark for a stylized “P” inside a larger stylized “P” which at first glance resembles a speech mark. It is also the registrant of domain names incorporating the Mark, including and .
...The Respondent’s use of a logo similar to the Complainant’s stylized “P” device mark, and the fact that the Complainant is traded on NASDAQ and therefore easily discoverable by anyone wanting to find a target to impersonate online is, in this Complaint, more than sufficient to outweigh any inference that the Respondent would not be aware of (and targeting) the Mark.
...
2022-02-17 - Case Details
The Complainant notes that it sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent prior to commencing these proceedings and received a response in which the Respondent maintains that it registered the disputed domain name for a private project and that the initial message on the parking page to which the disputed domain name resolved should be read as “What’s a P-P” which is quite different to “WHATSAPP”. The Respondent’s representative noted in its letter of October 28, 2016 that no trading had taken place under the mark and that they had had a number of commercial approaches to purchase the disputed domain name but had rejected them because they referred to retain it. ...The Respondent’s initial web page displayed the message “What’s a P-P”. There was no indication on the web page or in the record that this was in relation to a bona fide offering of goods or services, or an independent business, or that the Respondent was known by or traded under the disputed domain name or this phrase. ...
2017-11-01 - Case Details
Flanders, supra (stating, regarding reverse domain name hijacking, "[i]n the [p]anel's view, such a finding is particularly appropriate where the respondent's registration of the domain name predates the very creation of the complaint's trademark"). As the panel further noted in the latter case, "[i]n the [p]anel's view, the [c]omplainant's actions must have inevitably imposed burdens and costs upon the [r]espondent," who in this case went through the trouble and expense of hiring legal counsel.
...
2014-11-05 - Case Details
The Complainant asserts that the [r]espondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name [...]. The [p]anel therefore finds that the [r]espondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name” (see also Christian Dior Couture v. ...The [p]anel therefore finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith”.
...
2011-03-15 - Case Details
5/1997 p. 488, 489).
On that basis, Claimant could in principle request a competent court to order Respondent to modify its company name or to refrain from using a company name confusingly similar to its trademark.
...As a result, the principles set forth
in the above-mentioned cases (ATF 120 II 144; Loewe sic! 5/1997 p. 488) could
not apply and the claimant’s trademark could not prevail over the defendant’s
company name on the basis of article 13 para 2 TMA. ...
2005-12-08 - Case Details
The Complainant is also the holder of several trademark registrations including the followings:
- SWISS RE: IR 624 637; CH P-411 846; US 2 016 777;
- SWISS RE (fig.): IR 623.333; CH P-411 129; US 2 134 733;
- SWISS RE GROUP: IR 624 633; CH P-411 842; US 2 014 747;
- SWISS RE GROUP (fig.): IR 623 327; CH P-411 123.
...
2007-12-21 - Case Details
Respondent has refused these requests, and apparently linked the domain name to a website operated by the non-profit Joseph P. Miele Foundation, found at the MIELE.ORG domain name.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant states that it never gave the Respondent permission to register the MIELE.NET domain name. ...Respondent claims he wants to transfer the domain name to the Joseph P. Miele Foundation, whose founder is allegedly one of his friends. It appears that Respondent has not, however, transferred the domain name to this third party, but instead has linked the domain name to that party’s website, found at MIELE.ORG. ...
2000-09-20 - Case Details
The mark registered by Complainant is SOCIETY OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL U.S.A. ST V DE P and the disputed domain name is . Thus, only a part of the registered mark is incorporated into the disputed domain name, and the "svdp" portion of the domain name shows up as ST V DE P in the registered mark. ...Further, Respondent's
use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services. See
Madonna Ciccone p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and Madonna.com, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0847, and The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. and PNC
Bank, N.A. v. ...
2004-06-08 - Case Details
In conducting this assessment, the Panel can and does think it is legitimate to take into account the fact that the letter "p" and letter “o” are next to one another on a qwerty keyboard.
6.34 That is sufficient to decide this issue in the favour of the Complainant. ...Instead, it requires registrars (absent the establishment of a Proxy Accreditation Program) to disclose “the circumstances under which the P/P Provider will reveal and/or publish in the Registration Data Service (Whois) or equivalent service the P/P Customer’s identity and/or contact data” (see paragraph 2.4.5 of the Specification On Privacy And Proxy Registrations attached to the 2003 Registrar Accreditation Agreement)....
2013-10-17 - Case Details
The website associated with the disputed domain name is currently inactive,
although the Complainant produces screenshots of the home page of the former site, which features a “P R I
V I L E G E” logo markedly similar to that of the Complainant. The site states that it is a “Design Company I
Category” and refers to the Shymkent and Dostyk Plazas. The Panel notes that there are shopping malls by
each of those names in Kazakhstan, although the said reference is not otherwise explained. At the bottom
of the page, beneath another “P R I V I L E G E” logo similar to that of the Complainant, is the legend “© All
rights reserved, PRIVILEGE GROUP DMCC Dubai.” ...
2022-07-28 - Case Details
Best regards,
[Employee name]
Fund Manager”
The fake email account copies and displays Complainant’s stylized “P” mark in the signature of the email
message, adjacent to Complainant’s PRINCIPAL mark.
...Factual Background
The fake email account copies and displays Complainant’s stylized “P” mark in the signature of the email message, adjacent to Complainant’s PRINCIPAL mark.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. ...
2023-09-25 - Case Details