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”. ...
2024-08-21 - Case Details
explain, and provide evidence supporting the assertion that “[p]lacing the word ‘trex’ after another word is
a common commercial convention”…”
The Respondent did not respond to PO1.
...
2024-06-10 - 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 Complainant and its SILVER CREEK 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”).
...
2025-01-27 - Case Details
Considering the Registrar-provided registrant information corresponds to the contact information of a WhoIs privacy service provider, and since the Complainant elected as mutual jurisdiction the courts at the location of the concerned registrar, the P...
(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. ...
2024-07-08 - 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.” ...
2024-12-10 - Case Details
Here, 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 upon and targeting
the name, mark, 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 effort to trade upon the fame of Complainant’s name and mark for
commercial gain”).
...
2024-12-16 - Case Details
The record shows that the Domain Name has been resolving to a p...
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
B. Respondent...
2024-10-25 - Case Details
The Panel has accessed the page at “http://www.lesportsacoutlet.com/lesportsac-dual-zipper-cosmetic-bag-blue-rich-flowers-p-140.html”, which advertises a “LeSportsac” cosmetics bag; the same image appears in Complainant’s Annex F. ...
2013-06-11 - Case Details
Ferris,
WIPO Case No. D2006-1514; Gordon Sumner, p/k/a Sting v. Michael Urvan,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0596....
2011-06-08 - Case Details
Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 5.1 of the Policy and 14 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
John P. Gaffney
Sole Panelist
Dated: August 25, 2011...
2011-09-09 - Case Details
Cette réponse qui émane de la société Web Communication Consulting et signée par une personne dénommée P. Bertin reprend d’ailleurs les arguments contenus dans les différentes communications précédentes, et qui peuvent être résumés comme suit :
La société Web Communication Consulting est une agence de communication spécialisée sur le web, qui crée des sites internet sur lesquels les internautes peuvent donner leur avis. ...
2011-05-19 - Case Details
The next day, Respondent objected to the supplemental filing citing Gordon Sumner, p/k/a Sting v. Michael Urvan,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0596.
The Center appointed Maxim H. Waldbaum as the sole panelist in this matter on July 13, 2011. ...
2011-08-04 - Case Details
The Parties
Complainant is Emeshel, LLC of Miami, Florida, United States of America, represented by the law firm GrayRobinson. P. A., United States of America.
Respondent is DomRegistrar.com of Great Neck, New York, United States of America, represented by the law firm Lewis & Lin, LLC, United States of America.
2. ...
2011-11-18 - Case Details
Further, on the basis of the Panel's findings of bad faith on the part of the Respondent (as detailed below), the Panel finds that the Respondent's intentional illegitimate use of the Complainant's RUNESCAPE trade mark in connection with the Disputed Domain Name precludes a finding that any offering of services on the Website constitutes a bona fide offering (see Madonna Ciccone p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com",
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847 and Viacom International, Inc., Paramount Pictures Corporation, and Blockbuster Inc. v. ...
2012-02-15 - Case Details
Factual Background
The Complainant is the registered owner of the trademark IWC in relation to goods in Class 14 (watches and their components), see inter alia Swiss registration No. P-469777, registered February 22, 2000; and US registration No 1,205,403, registered August 17, 1982. ...
2012-03-15 - Case Details
Moreover, if the evidence indicated the likelihood that the Domain Name (and the company name) were chosen in order to exploit the Complainant’s trademark, that could not be considered a bona fide commercial use for purposes of the Policy. See Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847: “use which intentionally trades on the fame of another cannot constitute a ‘bona fide’ offering of goods or services. ...
2012-03-15 - Case Details
However, no such circumstances present themselves in the current case, in respect of which the Panel's findings of bad faith on the part of the Respondent (discussed below), precludes a finding that any offering of goods or services on the Website is bona fide (see Madonna Ciccone p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com",
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847; and Viacom International, Inc., Paramount Pictures Corporation, and Blockbuster Inc. v. ...
2011-12-19 - Case Details
The Complainant owns numerous combined trademarks whose verbal element consists of the words “swiss” and “casinos”, such as:
- Swiss trademark n° 551086 SWISS CASINOS, that was registered on October 31, 2006 with a priority date as of March 2, 2006 in classes 35, 36, 37, 41, 42 and 45;
- Swiss trademark n° 569377 SWISS CASINOS, that was registered on April 1, 2008 with a priority date as of March 12, 2008 in classes 35, 36, 37, 41, 42, and 45;
- International trademark n° 963920 SWISS CASINOS, that was registered on April 9, 2008 in classes 35, 36, 37, 41, 42 and 45;
- Swiss trademark n° P-418930 SWISS CASINOS, that was registered on November 7, 1995 with a priority date as of March 31, 1995 in class 41;
- International trademark n° 645160 SWISS CASINOS, that was registered on September 27, 1995 in class 41.
...
2011-11-23 - Case Details
While the Respondent arguably may have had a legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name at one time (as distributor of the Complainant's watches), the Panel finds that any such legitimate interest ceased when the distributorship came to an end. See Finlandia-Uistin Oy v. Juha P. Raatikainen,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0570; Maree Gaye Miller v. Peter Horner,
WIPO Case No. D2008-1492; and Green Tyre Company Plc. v. ...
2011-04-19 - Case Details
On January 1, 2009, Respondent replied by email again demanding that Complainants “[p]urchase the domain at $500 or go to the UDRP”. Complainants then initiated the present proceedings to obtain the transfer of the Disputed Domain Name.
...
2011-02-21 - Case Details