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.
...
2022-05-24 - Case Details
The Complainant is a member of Standard & Poor’s (S&P) 500 Index, and its common stock is traded on the
New York Stock Exchange.
Among its many services, the Complainant offers a credit reporting service that provides consumers with a
summary of their credit history, and certain other information, reported to credit bureaus by lenders and
creditors.
...
2022-05-09 - Case Details
Moreover, the Panel cannot escape
the clear inference that the name was opportunistically chosen to take unfair advantage of the Complainant’s
mark, and cannot therefore support a claim to a right or legitimate interest under the Policy in respect of the
Respondent; see e.g., Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”, WIPO Case
No. D2000-0847 (stating “it would be a mistake to conclude that mere registration of a [business name]
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 [business name], and not obtained merely to circumvent the application of the Policy.”).
...
2022-03-18 - Case Details
De manier waarop de Verweerder de Domeinnaam heeft gebruikt veroorzaakt namelijk een gevaar voor verwarring met het merk van Klager nr. 1 wat betreft de herkomst, ondersteuning, relatie of goedkeuring van de website (zie Schleich GmbH v. P. Schellens, Cosch BV,
WIPO Case No. DEU2017-0005).
Bijgevolg is de Arbiter van oordeel dat het voldoende aannemelijk is gemaakt dat de Verweerder geen recht of legitiem belang heeft in de Domeinnaam.
...
2022-02-23 - Case Details
D2015-0024 (“the disputed domain name…incorporates the [c]omplainant’s existing trademark, and merely switches the word order…[t]he disputed domain name incorporates the dominant feature of the [c]omplainant’s mark and is, in the [p]anel’s view, confusingly similar to the [c]omplainant’s mark.”)
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has met its burden under the first element.
...
2022-02-02 - Case Details
The fact that some consumers may now associate the disputed domain name with Respondent does not render Respondent’s original registration and use of a confusingly similar disputed domain name into a legitimate use. See, e.g., Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847; eBay Inc. v. ebayMoving / Izik Apo,
WIPO Case No. ...
2021-04-23 - Case Details
Moreover, as stated in section 2.14 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, “[p]articularly when the TLD is descriptive of or relates to goods or services (including their natural zone of expansion), a geographic region, or other term associated with the complainant, the respondent’s selection of such TLD would tend to support a finding that the respondent obtained the domain name to take advantage of the complainant’s mark and as such that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.” ...
2021-03-23 - Case Details
That is sufficient for paragraph 4 a. (i) of the P...
A Identical or Confusingly Similar
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-09-26 - 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 BACARA 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”).
...
2022-09-23 - Case Details
The Respondent’s registration
and use of the Disputed Domain Name indicate that such registration and use have been done for the
specific purpose of trading on the name and reputation of the Complainant and its LEND LEASE 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
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?...
2022-06-21 - Case Details
The Respondents’
registration and use of the Disputed Domain Names indicate that such registration and use have been done
for the specific purpose of trading on the name and reputation of the Complainant and its HESI 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
In 2021, the Complainant’s total worldwide revenue was approximately USD 27,3 billion, and its stock is part
of the S&P 500 stocks index. The Complainant has about 14,500 employees worldwide and in 2022 is listed
as No.129 in the Fortune 500 Companies rankings.
...
2022-08-26 - 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)”. ...
2022-08-22 - 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 GIVELIFY 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”).
...
2022-10-04 - Case Details
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 Complainants and their FLOWERS FOODS 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”).
...
2021-09-29 - Case Details
Ocorre que, para que o candidato possa se tornar titular de um nome de domínio sob o “.br” ele deve necessariamente preencher os requisitos e aceitar o contrato para registro de nome de domínio, que determina, na forma do parágrafo único do artigo 1º da citada Resolução CGI.br/RES/2008/008/P que:
“Constitui-se em obrigação e responsabilidade exclusivas do requerente a escolha adequada do nome do domínio a que ele se candidata. ...
2021-09-23 - Case Details
This raises a question as to the Respondent’s corporate identifier, but does not necessarily by itself demonstrate that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See e.g., Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847.
The Panel conducted Internet searches, including of accommodation and travel booking websites, and did not find any clear evidence that the Respondent was using the name HOSTELITE WORLD before notice of this dispute. ...
2021-09-10 - Case Details
The Parties
The Complainant is HCCI Professional Protective Services, LLC, United States of America (“United States”),
represented by Thomas P. Howard LLC, United States.
The Respondent is Anonymize, Inc. / Jonathan McMaster, United States, represented by Archer Softech,
India.
2. ...
2022-07-18 - Case Details
No specific evidence is advanced to demonstrate that the mark is well known or famous. Exhibit P is comprised of 13 trademark registrations from different countries. (The Panel notes this number in contrast to the 650 registrations attributed to the CALTEX mark). ...
2020-12-01 - Case Details
Le Demandeur a un droit attaché à un signe distinctif selon le droit de la Suisse
L’Expert constate que le Demandeur s’est vu attribuer la titularité de la Marque sur la base du jugement du Tribunal de Commerce de Paris du 8 juillet 2020 (p. 68 dudit jugement) et que les démarches ont été entreprises afin de faire inscrire le changement de titulaire au registre international des marques auprès de l’OMPI (selon demande soumise à l’OMPI le 18 septembre 2020).
...
2020-11-26 - Case Details