Furthermore, in support of this confusing similarity the Panel notes that in the Petit Larousse Illustré 1982 p. 1532, Monte-Carlo is defined as "quartier de la Principauté de Monaco où se trouve le casino". Further on page 1529 Monaco is defined as "Principauté du littoral de la méditerranée: grand centre touristique: casino".
...
2000-12-21 - Case Details
Furthermore, in support of this confusing similarity the Panel notes that in the Petit Larousse Illustré 1982 p. 1532, Monte-Carlo is defined as "quartier de la Principauté de Monaco où se trouve le casino". Further on page 1529 Monaco is defined as "Principauté du littoral de la méditerranée: grand centre touristique: casino".
...
2000-12-21 - Case Details
D2000-0847 (WIPO October 12, 2000); Helen Folsade p/k/a/ Sade v. Quantum Computer Services, Inc., Case No. D2000-0794 (WIPO September 26, 2000).
Finally, Complainant asserts that Respondent’s actions also violate the United States Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which makes it unlawful and bad faith to register, offer for sale, or use a domain name that is identical to, or confusingly similar to, or dilutive of an existing mark.
...
2001-02-14 - Case Details
The Court concluded that: "The GALLO brand is universally known both nationally and in California, and has become an extraordinarily strong and distinctive mark...." (p. 1667). This holding was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 967 F.2d 1280 (9th Cir. 1992). ...
2000-11-22 - Case Details
Según advierte la demandada, "Todo el material fotográfico de estas páginas es exclusivamente propiedad de © La cámara de juani, por lo que queda absolutamente prohibida su copia o distribución pública sin el consentimiento del propietario, cualquier acción de esta naturaleza será denunciada ante la Ley y penada por la misma" (documento 47, p.3 de la demandante). La demandada conoce perfectamente la existencia de los derechos de propiedad intelectual sobre lo suyo, de tal forma que no puede desconocerlos sobre lo de los demás.
7. ...
2000-12-13 - Case Details
USCYB, WIPO Case No. D2001-1072
(November 8, 2001), at p. 6.
For the foregoing reasons, the Panel is satisfied that bad faith registration and use have been sufficiently established with respect to the domain name .
7. ...
2002-05-22 - Case Details
De Crédito ("Lan Kide Aurrezkia"), con domicilio en P. José M. Arizmendiarrieta s/n, 20500 Mondragón, Guipúzcoa, España (en adelante, la "Demandante").
...
2001-12-14 - Case Details
Therefore, pursuant to paragraphs 4 (i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name "orientalhotel.com" be transferred to the Complainant Mandarin Oriental Services B.V.
Mr T Willoughby
Presiding Panelist
Mr P E H Rindforth
Panelist
Mr J W Dabney
Panelist
Dated: February 19, 2001...
2001-02-22 - Case Details
As was said in the case of (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 and services…to
conclude otherwise would mean that a Respondent could rely on intentional infringement
to demonstrate a legitimate interest…".
...
2003-11-06 - Case Details
The Complainant refers to the case of Madonna Ciccone P/k/a Madonna v Dan
Parisi and "Madonna" WIPO Case
No. D2000-0847 (October 12, 2000).
Furthermore, the Complainant also contends that the Respondent’s website clearly competes with the Complainant’s website and that there can be no reasonable explanation to impute good faith to the Respondent in its selection and use of the Domain Name.
...
2004-03-29 - Case Details
The Complainants stated in their Complaint that a copy thereof had been sent by registered letter to the Respondent on October 3, 2003 (Complaint, para. 17 p. 19).
The Panel is satisfied that the Center has complied with its obligations under
paragraph 2(a) of the Rules "to employ reasonably available means calculated
to achieve actual notice to Respondent" (see e.g. ...
2003-11-28 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
Complainant
6.1 Complainant asserts that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar
to the Hebrew Mark and the English Mark in which Complainant has rights for
the following reasons:
(a) Complainant has rights in the Hebrew Mark and the English Mark by virtue
of:
< P>(i) registrations for the Hebrew Mark in Israel and the United States;
(ii) registrations for the English Mark and other marks that feature the English
Mark in Israel; and
(iii) common law rights derived from use and goodwill generated through use;
(b) The Domain Name is identical to Complainant’s trademarks because:
(i) any differences between Complainant’s trademarks, such as the apostrophe
in HA’ARETZ or the Domain Name and <.com> are inconsequential;
(c) The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainants trademarks because:
(i) the manner in which Respondent actually used the Domain Name and Complainant’s
trademarks at the Website caused confusion and was likely to cause confusion;
(ii) it is inevitable that members of the public have been confused and will
continue to assume that the Domain Name is owned, endorsed, or otherwise authorized
by Complainant;
(iii) Respondent’s use of a notice to the public that the Website was not affiliated
with nor endorsed by Complainant expressly acknowledged the existence of confusion;
(iv) third parties seeking to identify Complainant’s website have mistakenly
referenced a URL with the Domain Name rather than the correct URL.
6.2 Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests
in respect of the Domain Name because:
(a) Respondent has no license or right to use Haaretz as part of a Domain Name
or at all;
(b) All iterations of the website have had no independent significant or use
other than exploiting Complainant’s trademarks and luring readers of the Newspapers
to the website;
(c) The website never had any independent content or usefulness apart from
references to Complainant and Complainant’s trademarks;
(d) Complainant’s trademarks have strong international recognition and Respondent’s
unauthorized use of the Domain Name has been causing confusion and diluting
Complainant’s trademarks.
6.3 Complainant asserts that Respondent has registered and is using the Domain
Name in bad faith because:
(a) The Domain Name was registered approximately 77 years after the first use
of the Complainant’s trademarks and five months after the launch of the Newspaper’s
Hebrew language online edition;
(b) Respondent falsely represented and warranted in its registration agreement
with the Registrar that the Domain Name did not infringe the rights of any party;
(c) Respondent’s disclaimers on the First Appearance of the Website indicated
its awareness of the confusion the Domain Name was causing;
(d) The Domain Name registration deprives Complainant of its right to register
the Domain Name under its own name;
(e) Respondent’s conduct constitutes bad faith pursuant to Paragraph 4(b)(ii)
of the Policy;
(f) Respondent chose the Domain Name because of its strong recognition among
readers of the Newspaper and the desire to cause confusion with Complainant’s
trademarks;
(g) Registration of the Domain Name was intended to create a false impression
that Respondent and its Website are affiliated with Complainant;
(h) Respondent provided a false address to the Registrar when registering the
Domain Name;
(i) Respondent has no trademark registrations or applications for registration
of the English Mark in any country;
(j) Respondent could not have had any reason for acquiring the Domain Name
except to force Complainant to buy the Domain Name from Respondent;
(k) The website is being used for the purpose of making libelous statements
about the Complainant and its counsel;
(l) Respondent has not used or made demonstrable preparations to use the Domain
Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services;
(m) Respondent’s use of the Domain Name for a website expressing opinions regarding
Complainant was not necessary as it could have used many other domain names
for that purpose;
(n) Respondent’s conduct constitutes bad faith pursuant to Paragraph 4(b)(iv)
of the Policy;
(o) Respondent has not demonstrated a legitimate non-commercial or fair use
of the Domain Name;
(p) Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name.
...
2002-07-22 - Case Details
See Harrods Limited v.Vineet Singh,
WIPO Case No. D2001-1162, where the [p]anel held that ‘… any use of the name Harrods in conjunction with a description… would suggest a false sense of origin…for any associated goods or services’. ...Brad Shaw,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0411, where the [p]anel held that ‘The [d]omain [n]ame consists of the word HARRODS plus a hyphen and the generic term ’poker’. ...
2011-08-10 - Case Details
Prior to the filing of the Response, the Center received a number of emails from Terence P. Carolan. In one of those emails Mr. Terence Carolan said:
Finally, the ‘respondent' is listed as Liam J. ...When the Response was received by the Center, it showed Terence P. Carolan and Liam F. Carolan as respondents, and it was signed by both individuals.
On January 6, 2009, the Complainant's representatives wrote to the Center seeking authorization to file a Reply to certain matters raised in the Response. ...
2009-02-10 - Case Details
专家组应该审阅案件的整体情况，如果被投诉人注册某一商标的目的是为了善意地使用该商标而且不是为了规避可能发生的域名争议，那么专家组可以认定被投诉人就该争议域名享有权利或合法利益（Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna诉Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com"， WIPO 案件编号 D2000-0847）。
本案中，被投诉人主张其在善意提供商品或服务中使用了争议域名或与争议域名相对应的名称，所以被投诉人对争议域名享有权利或合法利益。 ...恶意注册和使用域名
根据政策第4(b)条，构成恶意注册和使用争议域名的情形包括但不限于：
(i) 表明[被投诉人]注册或获得该[争议]域名的主要目的是为了将[争议]域名出售、出租或以其他方式转让给实为商标或服务商标注册人的投诉人或其竞争对手，以换取高于[被投诉人]可证明的与[争议]域名直接相关的实付成本价值的报酬等情形； 或者
p>(ii) [被投诉人]注册[争议]域名的目的是为了阻止商品商标和服务商标的注册人以对应的域名体现其商标，但条件是[被投诉人]曾从事过此种行为； 或者
(iii) [被投诉人]注册[争议]域名的主要目的是为了破坏竞争对手的业务； 或者
(iv) 通过使用[争议]域名，[被投诉人]故意试图通过在[被投诉人]的网站或网址或者[被投诉人]网站或网址上的产品或服务的来源、赞助、附属关系或担保方面造成与投诉人商标之间可能的混淆，来吸引因特网用户访问[被投诉人]网站或其他在线地址，以牟取商业利益。
...
2015-01-05 - Case Details
They include the following:
(i) Swiss Registered trade mark no P-469475 applied for on November 12, 1999 in classes 3, 9, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 25, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35, 39, 41 and 42 that takes the following form:
(ii) Swiss Registered trade mark no 547368 applied for on April 6, 2006 in classes 25, 39, 41, 42, 43 and 44 that takes the following form:
(iii) United States registered trade mark no 4152507 filed on September 2, 2010 and registered on June 5, 2012 in classes 3, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35, 39, 41, 43 and, 44 which takes the same form as Swiss Registered trade mark no P-469475.
4.3 These and similar marks have been used for various products and services beyond tourism including clothing, food and beverage items and sporting articles. ...
2017-06-01 - Case Details
Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Given the extensive reputation of the ALLSTATE trademark, the Panel sees no explanation for Respondent’s adoption of the term “allstatecarins” in the disputed domain name other than to attract for commercial gain Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trademark. See Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com",
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847.
While that finding could suffice to dispose of the issue of bad faith registration, a contributing bad faith factor in this case is the fact that a trademark search on the date of registration of the disputed domain name would have revealed Complainant’s long standing trademark registrations. ...
2011-04-08 - Case Details
In support of its contention the Complainant cites Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com" (
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847). In that case the relevant contentions of the respondent and the panel’s findings in relation thereto are set out in the following passage from the decision:
“First, Respondent contends that its use of the domain name for an adult entertainment web site involved prior use of the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. ...
2011-07-14 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panel decisions have found that the combination of two trademarks in a domain name can, under certain circumstances cause a likelihood of confusion, as both elements of such domain name, and their combination, can be understood as a reference to a complainant indicating the source and origin of the products and services at issue (see A. P. Møller v. Web Society,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0135; Audi AG v. Hans Wolf,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0148; Saab Automobile AB et al. v. ...
2012-04-24 - Case Details
Beschwerdegegnerin
Die Beschwerdegegnerin brachte im Wesentlichen vor, dass der Domain Name mit der Marke SAP der Beschwerdeführerin nicht verwechselbar sei, insbesondere weil die Zeichenfolge „S-A-P“ mit Ausnahme des Namens der Beschwerdeführerin keine eigene assoziative Bedeutung habe, weshalb die Abkürzung „SAP“ in der Zeichenfolge „sapapps.com“ unterginge. ...
2011-11-18 - Case Details