Furthermore, the use of a domain name which intentionally trades on the fame of another and suggests
affiliation with the trademark owner cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services (Madonna
Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”, WIPO Case No. D2000-0847; AB Electrolux v.
Handi Sofian, Service Electrolux Lampung, WIPO Case No. ...
2022-04-01 - Case Details
It operates in the retail financial advice market in the United States as an independent broker-dealer. The Complainant provides an integrated p...
The Complainant is the owner of, inter alia, the United States trademark LPL with registration No. 1,801,076, registered on October 26, 1993 for services in International Class 36 (the “LPL trademark”).
...
2022-03-30 - Case Details
Une similitude en ce sens a été admise par la jurisprudence suisse entre des services de restauration et des produits de pâtisserie (CREPI, sic ! 2005, p. 384 c. 3) ou l’exploitation d’un bar à vin et le vin (SHK MSchG-Joller, Art. 3 N 337). Cela étant, il semble évident que le produit « café » et les services de restauration offerts par la Défenderesse sont similaires, d’autant qu’elle propose également des produits de café, ce qui ressort de l’annexe 10 de la demande.
...
2022-03-28 - Case Details
VistaPrint Technologies Ltd,
WIPO Case No. D2015-0886; and Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847).
Furthermore, the nature of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation, since the disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s trademark OSRAM followed by the geographic term MEXICO and geographic terms are seen as tending to suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1.
...
2021-05-03 - Case Details
The Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name indicate that such registration and use had been done for the specific purpose of trading on the name and reputation of the Complainant and its BRANDOPUS Mark. 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”).
...
2021-04-30 - Case Details
The Respondents’ registration and use of the Disputed Domain Names indicate that such registration and use had been done for the specific purpose of trading on the name and reputation of the Complainants and their SANDVIK COROMANT and WALTER 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.”).
...
2021-04-30 - Case Details
VistaPrint Technologies Ltd,
WIPO Case No. D2015-0886; and Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847).
It is acknowledged that once the panel finds a prima facie case is made by a complainant, the burden of production under the second element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...
2021-05-19 - Case Details
As stated in section 2.13.1 of the WIPO Overview
3.0 “[p]anels have categorically held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., the sale of
counterfeit goods or illegal pharmaceuticals, phishing, distributing malware, unauthorized account
access/hacking, impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate
interests on a respondent”.
...
2022-09-28 - Case Details
case=D2015-1507
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 5
of the Complainant and its FACEBOOK Mark. 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”).
...
2022-06-03 - Case Details
VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, WIPO Case No.
D2015-0886; and Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”, WIPO Case No.
D2000-0847).
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?...
2022-10-06 - Case Details
VistaPrint Technologies Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2015-0886; Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi / “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847).
For these reasons, this Panel finds that Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name was in bad faith.
7. ...
2021-08-17 - Case Details
As explained at section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. “[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 trade mark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith”. ...
2021-09-20 - Case Details
VistaPrint Technologies Ltd,
WIPO Case No. supra; VistaPrint Technologies Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2015-0886; and Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847).
It is acknowledged that once the Panel finds a prima facie case is made by a complainant, the burden of production under the second element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...
2020-11-11 - Case Details
The Parties
The Complainant is National Council of State Boards of Nursing, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Vedder Price P. C., United States.
The Respondent is WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc., Panama, / klawnny king, Bluma, Cameroon.
2. ...
2020-11-02 - Case Details
VistaPrint Technologies Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2015-0886; Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi / “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847).
For these reasons, this Panel finds that Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name was in bad faith within the meaning of the Policy.
7. ...
2020-09-02 - Case Details
Complainant employs over 11,000 individuals worldwide, and generated a total worldwide revenue of USD $22.1 billion in 2018. Complainant is a member of the S&P 500, is regularly listed in the Fortune 500 Companies and Forbes’ World’s Best Employers rankings and was recently ranked #139 in the Fortune 500 Companies rankings in 2019.
...
2020-09-29 - Case Details
The Respondent’s
registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name indicate that such registration and use had been done for
the specific purpose of trading on the name and reputation of the Complainant and its SEALED AIR Mark.
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”).
...
2022-09-02 - Case Details
The composition of the Disputed Domain Name indicates that
such registration and use has been done for the specific purpose of trading on the name and reputation of
the Complainant and its ALLIED UNIVERSAL Mark. 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”).
...
2022-08-30 - Case Details
WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.3 (“[A] respondent’s default […] would not by itself mean that the complainant is deemed to have prevailed; a respondent’s default is not necessarily an admission that the complainant’s claims are true. […] [P]anels have been prepared to draw certain inferences in light of the particular facts and circumstances of the case e.g., where a particular conclusion is prima facie obvious, where an explanation by the respondent is called for but is not forthcoming, or where no other plausible conclusion is apparent.”); see also The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. ...
2021-12-09 - Case Details
Furthermore, the use of a domain name which intentionally trades on the fame of another and suggests affiliation with the trademark owner cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services (Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847; AB Electrolux v. Handi Sofian, Service Electrolux Lampung,
WIPO Case No. ...
2021-12-17 - Case Details