The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks, including (hereinafter “the ADECCO Trademarks”):
- the Swiss trademark ADECCO No. 2P-431224 registered on September 26, 1996, for products and
services in classes 35, 41 and 42;
- the Swiss trademark ADECCO No. P-549358 registered on August 18, 2006, for products and
services in classes 9, 35, 36, 41 and 42;
- the European Union Trade Mark ADECCO No. 003330149 registered on January 19, 2005, for
products and services in classes 35, 41 and 42;
- the international trademark ADECCO No. 666347 registered on October 17, 1996, for products and
services in classes 35, 41 and 42; and
- the international trademark ADECCO (figurative) No. 901755 registered on August 18, 2006, for
products and services in classes 9, 35, 36, 41 and 42.
...
2023-07-07 - Case Details
In this regard, the Panel refers to the WIPO
Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4, which states “[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 unaf f iliated
entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith.” ...
2023-12-20 - Case Details
In this regard, the Panel also
refers to the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4, which states “[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”. ...
2023-04-14 - Case Details
The Parties
Complainant is Freeman Holding, LLC, United States of America (“USA”), represented by Vedder Price P.
C., USA.
Respondent is 杨智超 (Zhi Chao Yang), China.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Chengdu West Dimension Digital
Technology Co., Ltd. ...
2024-06-07 - Case Details
Although the Policy addresses ways in which a respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name, it is well established, as it is put in section 2.1 of WIPO Overview 3.0, that a complainant is required to make out a p...
There is no evidence in the present case that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, enabling it to establish rights or legitimate interests therein.
...
2023-09-19 - Case Details
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has not produced, and there is no evidence of the types of circumstances set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy that might give rise to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name on the part of the Respondent in these p...
The Panel recognizes that there may be some limited situations where the registration and use of domain names that specifically refer to and incorporate the trademark of another entity may serve legitimate purposes, cf. ...
2024-08-19 - Case Details
Factual Background
The Complainant is the Luxembourgish savings bank being an autonomous public establishment created according to the Luxembourgish law of March 24,1989, and is the owner of the SPUERKEESS trademark and service mark for which it holds an international p...
- Swiss registered trademark and service mark SPUERKEESS, registration number 615157, registered on December 30, 2010, for goods and services in classes 9,16, 25, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 45;
- European Union TM SPUERKEESS, registration number 009110552, registered on November 2, 2010, for goods and services in classes 9,16, 25, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 45; and
- United Kingdom registered trademark SPUERKEESS, registration number UK00909110552, registered on November 2, 2010, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 25, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42 and 45.
...
2024-02-02 - Case Details
In this regard,
the Panel refers to the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4, which states “[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.” ...
2024-01-12 - Case Details
In this regard, the Panel refers to the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4, which states “[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.”
...
2024-01-22 - Case Details
Goharbarane
Sharif / Mohammad Reza Rahmani Zanjani, WIPO Case No. DIR2016-0005, and ASSA ABLOY AB v. P
D S AB, WIPO Case No. D2000-0442). ASSA ABLOY is a highly distinctive trademark for the classes
of goods and services for which it is registered, and it has no descriptive character.
...
2024-02-27 - Case Details
D2001-0903,
highlighting WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition
(“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 2.13.1, “[p]anels have categorically held that the use of a domain name for
illegal activity (e.g., the sale of counterfeit goods (...), or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or
legitimate interests on a respondent”.
...
2024-04-18 - Case Details
In the informal email communications to the Center of February 21, 2024, the Respondent simply stated
“[S]top spamming me” and in its last email communication dated February 26, 2024 asked to “[P]lease
remove me from your mailing list. I do not authorize you to continue emailing when I have requested you to
stop. ...
2024-04-15 - Case Details
Referring to the third paragraph of section 1.7 of the WIPO
Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDR-P Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), the
Complainant observes that where a domain name incorporates a trade mark in its entirety, or where at least
a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally
be considered confusingly similar to the mark.
...
2024-04-08 - Case Details
The Complainant is a member of the Standard & Poor’s (S&P) 500 Index, and its common stock is traded on
the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol EFX. The Complainant employs approximately 11,000
people worldwide.
...
2024-04-05 - Case Details
The addition of other terms to a petitioner’s mark
should not prevent a finding of similarity under the first element (see, for example, Klarna Bank AB v. P. I.,
WIPO Case No. DSE2018-0052, which involved the domain names and ).
...
2024-04-03 - Case Details
Section 3.2.1 of WIPO Overview 3.0 provides that “[p]articular circumstances panels may take into account
in assessing whether the respondent’s registration of a domain name is in bad faith include: (i) the nature of
the domain name (e.g., a typo of a widely-known mark, or a domain name incorporating the complainant’s
mark plus an additional term such as a descriptive or geographic term, or one that corresponds to the
complainant’s area of activity or natural zone of expansion) [...] ...
2024-06-03 - Case Details
In this regard, the Panel refers to the WIPO Overview 3.0, section
3.1.4, which states “[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.” ...
2024-03-04 - Case Details
In this regard, the Panel refers to the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4, which states “[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”.
...
2024-05-20 - Case Details
The Respondent requested that the language of the proceeding be English, referring to the language of the
Registration Agreement, the language of the “[P]arties’ historical communication”, the Respondent’s lack of
fluency in Spanish, and arguing that the conduct of the proceeding in Spanish would prejudice its ability to
participate effectively. ...
2024-05-22 - Case Details
The Complainant employs approximately
11,000 people worldwide. It is a member of Standard & Poor’s (S&P) 500 Index, and its common stock is
traded on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) under the symbol EFX.
...
2022-09-14 - Case Details