WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
P-Net (Proprietary) Limited v. Nikolay Indahl, Bashundhara
Case No. D2021-1323
1. The Parties
The Complainant is P-Net (Proprietary) Limited, South Africa, represented by Spoor & Fisher Attorneys, South Africa.
...It is now the leading online recruitment provider in South Africa.
The corporate name “P-Net Proprietary Limited” was registered with the South African Companies and Intellectual Property Commission in 1999 and an extract from the companies register showing this is annexed as Annexure F.
...
2021-07-13 - Case Details
The Complainant says that the change of the letter “p” by the letter “q” does not provide sufficient distinction from the Complainant’s mark, and is hardly noticeable and clearly deliberate, representing a classic typosquatting case with the intention to confuse email recipients.
...There is no doubt that the disputed domain name is indeed a misspelling of the Complainant’s well-known mark TETRA PAK with the change of the letter “p” by the letter “q”, in addition to the hyphen and the letters “ch”.
Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark for purposes of the Policy “when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2021-08-03 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Evolution Gaming Group AB v. Domain Admin, WhoisGuard, Inc. / P Jaden
Case No. D2020-1576
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Evolution Gaming Group AB, Sweden, represented by Zacco Sweden AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Domain Admin, WhoisGuard, Inc., Panama / P Jaden, Singapore.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...
2020-08-27 - Case Details
Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Section 3.1.4 of WIPO Overview 3.0 provides that “[p]anels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith”. ...Additionally, section 3.4 of WIPO Overview 3.0 provides that, “[p]anels have held that the use of a domain name for purposes other than to host a website may constitute bad faith…. ...
2020-04-21 - Case Details
Queensland Performance Pty Ltd aka Shadex Industries P/L
Case No. DAU2014-0038
1. The Parties
The Complainant is H-D U.S.A., LLC of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States of America, represented by Baldwins Intellectual Property, New Zealand.
...After Hours Home Physio a.k.a. Shadex Industries P/L a.k.a. Queensland Performance Pty Ltd,
WIPO Case No. D2014-2168. That email also included some brief submissions. ...
2015-02-23 - Case Details
In view of the foregoing, neither trademark law nor the protection sought by Claimant under the legislation for protection of trade names or for unfair competition are applicable (see for trademark law: SIWR-Marbach, p. 197, David, Markenschutzgesetz, N° 27 ad article 13; for trade names: art. 956 CO, ATF 107 II 362, 92 II 278 and sic! 10/2002, p. 686; for unfair competition: ATF 120 II 78, 123 IV 211, 125/376, and David, Schweiz. Wettbewerbsrecht, p. 9).
...
2005-10-03 - Case Details
The Domain Name(s) and Registrar(s)
The disputed domain names are , , , , , , , , , <p-u-l-l-m-a-n.com>, , , , are all registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc.
3. ...Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the following domain names , , , , , , , , , <p-u-l-l-m-a-n.com>, , , , be transferred to the Complainant.
...
2008-05-30 - Case Details
Morgan v. Resource Marketing, Case No. D2000-0035, ¶6, p.4 (Administrative Panel Decision, March 23, 2000); Shields v. Zuccarini, 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 3350 (March 22, 2000); Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. John Zuccarini and the Cupcake Patrol, Case No. D2000-0330, ¶4, p.3 (Administration Panel Decision, June 7, 2000); Hewlett-Packard Company v. Cupcake City, Forum File No.: FA000200093562, p.4 (Administrative Panel Decision, April 7, 2000).
...
2000-10-20 - Case Details
On August 15, 2000, Network Solutions transmitted via e-mail to the Center its Verification Response, confirming that the registrant is AD-X Network, Inc., the Respondent herein, and stating that the administrative, technical and zone contacts are Dickson, P (PD1276) paul@ADX-NET, ADX Financial Network, Inc., 4550 Birch Bay Lynden Road, Blaine, WA 98230
No Response has been filed by the Respondent. However, the Center notified the Respondent of the Complaint by courier, fax and e-mail, and received confirmation of delivery on September 5, 2000, from the courier, TNT, and satisfactory transmission on September 1, 2000, of the fax, and likewise received confirmation from TNT of delivery to P. Dickson on September 5, 2000. Notifications of Default were sent by courier (FedEx) on September 26, 2000, to both the Respondent and to P. ...
2000-10-18 - Case Details
Accordingly, the [p]anel finds that [c]omplainant has failed in these Policy proceedings to establish that [r]espondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name”.
...The panelist in that case said:
“In fact, there is no evidence that [r]espondent knew of [c]omplainant, of [c]omplainant’s trademark or of [c]omplainant’s exclusive rights on providing gambling services in the Princedom of Monaco. Therefore, the [p]anel finds that [r]espondent did not register the [d]omain [n]ame in bad faith.
Furthermore, the [p]anel finds that in this case, paragraph 4(b), (i) of the Policy is not applicable and that the [r]espondent did not use the [d]omain [n]ame in bad faith. ...
2010-10-25 - Case Details
Dans la première page sur le site web, le visiteur retrouve sur la droite l’accès à la page Facebook associée à la partie (Annexe 6 de la Réponse) reportage journalistique et le lecteur ou visiteur voit le titre présenté sous forme de logo (B) qui reprend substantiellement la présentation graphique présentement utilisée par le Requérant depuis au moins 2013 selon l’Annexe P de la Réplique laquelle montre la page complète et non seulement la partie centre gauche (A).
A. ...Selon la preuve présentée par le Requérant, le Défendeur cherche ou accepte de placer de la publicité sur le site associé au nom de domaine litigieux et ainsi s’adonne à cet usage à des fins commerciales (Annexes M et P). Cet usage de publicité a d’ailleurs été clairement reconnu par le Défendeur lors de ses communications avec les procureurs du Requérant et d’une entrevue radio québécoise. ...
2016-09-06 - Case Details
The disputed
domain name dif fers f rom the SUPERDRY mark only by an additional letter “p”.
page 3
The Respondent has no rights in the disputed domain name, which redirects to a website featuring PPC links
related to men’s and women’s apparel.
...The Panel f inds the SUPERDRY trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, which, by
adding an additional letter “p” is a deliberate misspelling of the trademark. Accordingly, the disputed domain
name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2025-08-07 - Case Details
O Reclamado é T. P. F., Brasil.
2. O Nome de Domínio e a Unidade de Registro
O nome de domínio em disputa é (“Nome de Domínio em Disputa”), o qual
está registrado perante o NIC.br.
3. ...DECISÃO DO PAINEL ADMINISTRATIVO
Aktiebolaget (AB) Electrolux v. T. P. F.
Caso No. DBR2024-0036
1. As Partes...
2024-12-09 - Case Details
Factual Background
The Complainants, The Procter & Gamble Company (“P&G Complainant”), and Braun GmbH (“Braun
Complainant”) (which the P&G Complainant acquired in 2005), (collectively, the “Complainants”), sell
shaving and other consumer products worldwide under the well-known BRAUN trademark. ...The Braun Complainant owns an International registration for its BRAUN figurative trademark, No. 400415,
issued on May 23, 1973, in Class 8 for hair cutters and shavers, and component parts, and in other classes
for other goods; a European Union registration, No. 000394122, for its BRAUN trademark, issued on August
17, 1999, in Class 8 for electric shavers and hair clippers, certain component parts, and other goods, and in
other classes for other goods and services; a United States registration, No. 4148851 for its BRAUN stylized
trademark, issued on May 29, 2012, with a first use in January 1982, in Class 8 for electric razors and hair
clippers and certain replacement parts, and in class 21; and other registrations.
The P&G Complainant owns the domain name , registered on June 24, 1997, on which the
Complainants advertise and sell their shaving products and other products. ...
2024-12-10 - Case Details
Further, Respondent asserts that the
added letter “p” in the term “pappa” changes its meaning to “daddy” as compared to the Complainant’s use
of “papa” to signify “pope”. ...The disputed domain name is likely to be viewed as highly similar to Complainant’s
PAPA GYROS mark. The addition of an additional letter “p” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity
and the disputed domain name is likely to be perceived by consumers as having a similar appearance, and a
perhaps even identical pronunciation, connotation, and commercial impression. ...
2022-09-22 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Golden Goose S.p.A. v. Privacy Protect LLC / P de Ree, David Lomas
Case No. D2018-0592
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Golden Goose S.p.A. of Milan, Italy, represented by Scarpellini Naj-Oleari & Associati, Italy.
The Respondent is Privacy Protect LLC of Burlington, Massachusetts, United States of America ("United States") / P de Ree of Baltimore, Maryland, United States / David Lomas of Essex Junction, Vermont, United States.
2. ...
2018-06-05 - Case Details
Brauchbar, Die Verwirkung im Kennzeichenrecht; unter Berücksichtigung der Regelung in der Europäischen Union, Bâle 2001, p. 49. See also The Procter & Gamble Company contre Triall SA,
WIPO Case No. DCH2014-0001. Laches implies that the right owner has tolerated the violation of its rights for a long period of time without opposing it and that the author of the violation has in the meantime acquired a position worthy of protection so that the right owner would lose its right to claim legal protection against the violation of its right (see Swiss Federal Court, judgment 4A_638/2009, c. 3.2 not published in ATF 136 III 225; judgment 4C.371/2005 c. 3.1 and the judgments cited, in SJ 2007 I p. 7 and in sic! 2006 p. 500); see also Artemis Suisse SA v. ArtemisRose AG, Manuela Gisler,
WIPO Case No. DCH2015-0024; The Procter & Gamble Company v. ...
2019-08-05 - Case Details
Complainant argues that the adjunction of the letters “j” and “p”, representing Japan, does not change the overall impression of the disputed domain name, and therefore, does not avoid the likelihood of confusion in the public’s mind.
...Previous UDRP panels have found that when a domain name includes dictionary terms, which is the present case with the addition of the “j” and “p” letters representing Japan, such terms do not change the overall impression of the disputed domain name, and therefore, this does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity.
...
2019-09-02 - Case Details
The intention in registering such "typo-sites" is often to profit by selling such domain names to those with rightful claims to them (Complaint p.8).
i) As a result of such consumer confusion, Neuberger Berman is likely to suffer diverted traffic, loss of consumer goodwill, a resulting loss of sales, and inestimable damage to its reputation as a provider of online information and services.
...k) Upon information and belief, Respondent, Alfred Jacobsen, established shareholder accounts with Complainant during 1992, 1994, 1996, 1997 and 1998 (Complaint p. 10).
l) Under WIPO case precedent, Respondent’s "passive holding" of amounts to bad faith. ...
2000-06-15 - Case Details
The Respondent is owner of the domain name (Complaint, p. 9).
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant submits the following:
(i) the domain name at issue, , is identical to the above-described community trademark "LOCMA";
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name ; the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its trademark, nor has it licensed to apply for the registration of the domain name at issue; and
(iii) the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, because:
- it cannot be accepted that the Respondent was not aware of the use of "locma" by the Complainant and of the trademark "LOCMA";
- the Respondent still had a large choice for another domain name, such as, for example, or that are still available (Complaint Annexes 8 and 9); however, it was not logical to choose the trademark of a direct competitor;
- the Respondent had and has no intention to use the domain name at issue for a specific web site adapted to goods and/or services called "LOCMA" as the web site of said domain name is automatically redirected to the web site owned by the Respondent. ...This entitles the Administrative Panel to draw any such inferences
from such default as it considers appropriate pursuant to Paragraph 14(b) of
the Rules (see e.g. WIPO Cases Nos. D2000-0009,
p. 6 or D2000-0867, p. 6).
It is the Sole Panelist’s finding that the Complainant has established that the trademark "LOCMA" has been known in the European Union for a while. ...
2001-10-12 - Case Details