The MIGROS Trademark is registered in many jurisdictions around the world, including:
Jurisdiction
Trademark No.
Registration Date
Switzerland
P-405500
September 27, 1994
International Registration (designating China)
637252
February 13, 1995
China
6762810
September 28, 2010
The Complainant is also the holder of various domain names incorporating the MIGROS Trademark, including and . ...
2015-08-24 - Case Details
The Complainant owns a number of trademarks for ACQUA DI GIO' for perfumes and clothes of which the following are representative:
ACQUA DI GIO', United States registration, principal register, registered September 1, 1998, registration number 2185423 (serial number 75226000), class 3;
ACQUA DI GIO', international trademark, registered January 14, 1997, registration number 668975, classes 3, 25;
ACQUA DI GIO', Community Trademark, International Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market, registered January 30, 2001, registration number 505669, classes 3, 25;
ACQUA DI GIO', Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property, registered January 14, 1997, registration number P-435049, classes 3, 25.
The Complainant also owns trademarks for GIO' and GIO' DE GIORGIO ARMANI.
...
2015-05-29 - Case Details
The Complainant owns a number of trademarks for ACQUA DI GIO' for perfumes and clothes of which the following are representative:
ACQUA DI GIO', United States registration, principal register, registered September 1, 1998, registration number 2185423 (serial number 75226000), class 3;
ACQUA DI GIO', international trademark, registered January 14, 1997, registration number 668975, classes 3, 25;
ACQUA DI GIO', Community Trademark, International Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market, registered January 30, 2001, registration number 505669, classes 3, 25;
ACQUA DI GIO', Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property, registered January 14, 1997, registration number P-435049, classes 3, 25.
The Complainant also owns trademarks for GIO' and GIO' DE GIORGIO ARMANI.
...
2015-05-29 - Case Details
Complainant further argues that when a Disputed Domain Name incorporates an entire trademark with only the addition of common, non-distinctive words, it is still confusingly similar to the trademark as the additional terms do not eliminate the confusing similiarity. See, Hoffmann-LaRoche AG v. P Martin,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0323; Dixons Group Plc. v. Mr. Abu Abdullaah,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0843; V&S Vin & Sprit AB v. ...
2016-12-13 - Case Details
The specific cumulative circumstances in this case in which the Domain Name is almost identical to the Trademarks and in which Respondent has provided no evidence whatsoever of any actual or contemplated good-faith use of the Domain Name (the Panel notes in particular Respondent's current use to sell (without prescription) Complainant's product and competitors' products), are indicative of bad faith on the part of Respondent in its registration of the Domain Name as well (see The Coca-Cola Company v. P. Engbers,
WIPO Case No. DNL2012-0037; and Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,
WIPO Case No. ...
2016-11-17 - Case Details
The Respondents' registration and use of the Disputed Domain Names indicates that such registration and use was done for the specific purpose of trading on the name and reputation of the Complainants and the Complainants' Marks. See Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com",
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847 ("[t]he only plausible explanation for Respondent's actions appears to be an intentional effort to trade upon the fame of Complainant's name and mark for commercial gain" and "[t]hat purpose is a violation of the Policy, as well as U.S. ...
2017-01-03 - Case Details
Complainant has provided evidence that immediately following that transmission Respondent either deactivated that email address or blacklisted emails from Complainant's counsel (see Exhibit P, Id.)
After this Complaint was filed, and the proxy service was removed, the resulting new WhoIs listing identified the registrant as "Saidul Chowdhury", and provided a new administrative email address. ...
2016-01-21 - Case Details
D2006-1215 (transferring ), citing Gordon Sumner, p/k/a Sting v. Michael Urvan,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0596. In this regard, Complainant’s affidavit attested to approximately USD 7 million in revenue since 2000. ...
2015-10-29 - Case Details
VistaPrint Technologies Ltd., supra.; Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847).
Finally, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has it acquired trademark rights pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy.
...
2016-03-11 - Case Details
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), European Court of Justice Case No C-383/99 P.
This Panel agrees with the Complainant’s assertion that the prefix in the disputed domain name, i.e. the use of “get” before “lifeok”, is insufficient to appropriately distinguish the domain name with the Complainant’s trademark. ...
2016-04-26 - Case Details
It owns a number of trademarks for the term "ETH" the earliest of which is Swiss registration P-526262, registered on June 16, 2004. It does not have any registrations in Brazil where the Respondent is based. ...
2016-04-22 - Case Details
However, as previous panels have stated, “it would be a mistake to conclude that mere registration of a trademark creates a legitimate interest under the Policy.” Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847. Here, no legitimate interest arises as both application and registration of said MONSTER ARMY trademark took place well after Complainant had served Respondent with a cease and desist letter.
...
2016-03-31 - Case Details
Factual Background
The Complainant, Bank Nagelmackers N.V., is a Belgian bank founded by P. Nagelmackers in 1747, making it the oldest bank in Belgium. The bank remained independent until 2001, when it merged with Delta Lloyd Bank. ...
2016-06-28 - Case Details
The Parties
The Complainant is The Society of Lloyd’s, a society incorporated by the Lloyd’s Act 1871 (Act of Parliament, United Kingdom) of One Lime Street, London EC3M 7HA, United Kingdom. Represented by Nicholas P Demery, a solicitor within the Legal Services Department of the Complainant.
The Respondent is Lost in Space S.A. of Suite 562, Henderson, Nevada 89014, United States of America. ...
2002-08-07 - Case Details
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 domain names, ,
, , ,
and be transferred
to the Complainant Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG.
P-E H Petter Rindforth
Sole Panelist
Dated: May 12, 2003...
2003-05-20 - Case Details
- The Complainant’s alleged trademark is comprised of two common words, sea and lite (a common variant spelling of the word "light"), which describe the products that the Complainant offers for sale, i.e., a marine LED lantern or sealite (Response Annex 1, Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed., p.680).
- The Complainant admits that it has no registered trademark rights in or relating to the domain name in dispute in Australia or elsewhere (Complaint para. 11A, page 5)...
2003-06-20 - Case Details
Clicking on the link
takes the user to "www.cleartest.com", at which is promoted a product
claimed to enable a user to defeat of various drug tests. (Complaint, paragraph
11o-p; Annex 12; verified by the panelist on December 12, 2002).
In his emails to Complainant, Respondents assert that NORML is an abbreviation
or acronym for NORthern Michigan Laboratories, a "DBA"[5]
in which Respondents claim an interest. ...
2002-12-23 - Case Details
For an allegation of bad faith registration and use of a domain name to succeed, the Complainant has to show at the very least that when the Respondent registered the Domain Name, the Respondent was (or was likely to have been) aware of the existence of the Complainant or, more particularly, the Complainant’s rights in respect of the trademark in question.
Rusconi Editore S. P. A. v. Bestinfo, WIPO
Case No. D2001-0656 (July 5, 2001). See also America.com Inc.
et al v. PSS InterNet Services, Inc., NAF Case No. ...
2002-12-04 - Case Details
Interestingly, both the Complainant and the Respondent stated that scripts, when used in connection with computer programs and systems, is generic and means software or program (e.g. Complaint at pp. 14 and 15; and the Response at p. 11). From this, the Respondent attempts to construct an argument that the entire disputed domain name is merely descriptive. ...
2001-11-14 - Case Details
Respondent will have accomplished his objective of diverting potential customers of Complainant to his websites by the use of domain names that are similar to Complainant’s trademark." P. 11.
The critical issue in the free speech cases is the intent of the registrant of the domain names. ...
2001-01-31 - Case Details