The Complainant contends that it has had more than USD 53 billion in sales in 2022, is a
member of the stock index “S&P 500”, having more than 124,000 employees at facilities and offices in the
United States and around the world. ...
2023-11-27 - 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.” ...
2024-01-09 - 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.” ...
2023-12-14 - Case Details
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 5
The Panel finds that the Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name indicate that such
registration and use has been done for the specific purpose of trading on the name and reputation of the
Complainant and its INTELLIPAY 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”). ...
2023-12-14 - Case Details
The Respondent’s registration and
use of the Disputed Domain Name indicate that such registration and use has been done for the specif ic
purpose of trading on and targeting the name and reputation of the Complainant. 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 ef fort to trade upon the fame of
Complainant’s name and mark for commercial gain”). ...
2023-12-13 - Case Details
DRO2022-0010
Punctul 15(a) din Reguli sugereaza ca decizia in privinta unei plângeri trebuie sa se faca pe baza declarațiilor și documentelor prezentate Completului Administrativ și în conformitate cu Politica, aceste Reguli și orice reguli și principii de drept p......
2023-03-23 - Case Details
Additionally, see section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 which explains: “[p]anels have
consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a
famous or widely-known trade mark by an unaffiliated entity (particularly domain names comprising typos or
incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) can by itself create a presumption of bad faith”. ...
2023-03-22 - Case Details
The Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name indicates that such
registration and use had been done for the specific purpose of trading on the name and reputation of the
Complainant and its MODERNA 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”).
...
2023-03-20 - Case Details
For example, panels have generally declined to find respondent rights or
legitimate interests in a domain name on the basis of a corresponding trade mark registration where the
overall circumstances demonstrate that such trade mark was obtained primarily to circumvent the application
of the UDRP or otherwise prevent the complainant’s exercise of its rights (even if only in a particular
jurisdiction) (WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 2.12.2).
In Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”, WIPO Case No. D2000-0847, the
panel held as follows:
“However, it would be a mistake to conclude that mere registration of a trademark creates a legitimate
interest under the Policy…To establish cognizable rights, the overall circumstances should
demonstrate that the registration was obtained in good faith for the purpose of making bona fide use of
the mark in the jurisdiction where the mark is registered, and not obtained merely to circumvent the
application of the Policy.”
...
2023-03-20 - Case Details
Section 3.5 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 states that “[p]articularly with respect to ‘automatically’ generated pay-
per-click links, panels have held that a respondent cannot disclaim responsibility for content appearing on
the website associated with its domain name (nor would such links ipso facto vest the respondent with rights
or legitimate interests)”. ...
2023-03-16 - Case Details
Section 3.5 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 states that “[p]articularly with respect to ‘automatically’ generated pay-
per-click links, panels have held that a respondent cannot disclaim responsibility for content appearing on
the website associated with its domain name (nor would such links ipso facto vest the respondent with rights
or legitimate interests)”. ...
2023-03-14 - Case Details
First, based on the circumstances here, the Panel concludes that the Respondent’s registration and use of
the Disputed Domain Names had been done for the specific purpose of trading on the name and reputation
of the Complainants and their META, OCULUS and QUEST 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”).
...
2023-03-13 - 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”. ...
2023-04-24 - Case Details
D2023-1525, and O2 Worldwide Limited v. Domains By Proxy,
LLC / Rodrigo P Braga, Ypse IT Solutions, WIPO Case No. D2019-0124;
Based on the available record, the Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.
...
2024-04-22 - Case Details
Two of the best-known artists recorded under the “Uptown Records” label are Mary J.
Blige and Sean John Combs (aka Puff Daddy/P Diddy), who both refer to the “Uptown Records” label on
their current websites. The Complainant also refers to the “Uptown Records” label on its three websites
mentioned above.
...
2023-02-08 - 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 to a famous or widely-known trade mark
by an unaffiliated entity (particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a
descriptive term) can by itself create a presumption of bad faith”. ...
2023-02-20 - Case Details
Segundo o art. 1o da Resolução CGI.br/RES/2008/008/P do Comitê Gestor da Internet no Brasil, via de
regra, um nome de domínio disponível para registro é concedido ao primeiro requerente que satisfaz,
quando do requerimento, as exigências para o registro do mesmo. ...
2023-07-28 - Case Details
Section 3.5 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 states that “[p]articularly with respect to ‘automatically’ generated pay-
per-click links, panels have held that a respondent cannot disclaim responsibility for content appearing on
the website associated with its domain name (nor would such links ipso facto vest the respondent with rights
or legitimate interests)”. ...
2023-07-27 - Case Details
First, based on the circumstances here, the Panel concludes that the Respondent’s registration and use of
the Disputed Domain Name had been done for the specific purpose of trading on the name and reputation of
the Complainants and their META, QUEST, and META QUEST 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”).
...
2023-08-29 - Case Details
For example, panels have generally declined to find respondent rights or
legitimate interests in a domain name on the basis of a corresponding trade mark registration where the
overall circumstances demonstrate that such trade mark was obtained primarily to circumvent the application
of the UDRP or otherwise prevent the complainant’s exercise of its rights (even if only in a particular
jurisdiction) (WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 2.12.2).
In Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”, WIPO Case No. D2000-0847, the
panel held as follows:
“However, it would be a mistake to conclude that mere registration of a trademark creates a legitimate
interest under the Policy…To establish cognizable rights, the overall circumstances should demonstrate that
the registration was obtained in good faith for the purpose of making bona fide use of the mark in the
jurisdiction where the mark is registered, and not obtained merely to circumvent the application of the
Policy.”
...
2023-09-04 - Case Details