The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CHAMPIONX trademark, according to
Complainant, because it is a misspelling of Complainant’s CHAMPIONX trademark, with the substitution of
the letter “q” for the letter “p.”
Complainant further asserts that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain
name based on: the lack of evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names;
the lack of evidence that Respondent has made use of, or made demonstrable preparations to use the
disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; and Respondent’s use
of misleading WhoIs information.
...
2022-06-15 - Case Details
Softech Ltd., DNS Administrator (gold), WIPO Case No. D2007-1699; and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG
v. P Martin, WIPO Case No. D2009-0323).
The addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.net” to the disputed domain name constitutes a
technical requirement of the Domain Name System. ...
2022-06-17 - 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.” ...
2022-06-16 - 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 META and INSTAGRAM 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”).
...
2022-08-25 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that GILEAD is a well-known and famous brand, adding that is a member of the S&P 500, employs 14,500 individuals worldwide, and has been the recipient of unsolicited news articles in publications such as the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post, as well as Internet sources and other articles. ...
2021-10-08 - Case Details
D2019-1432, was found to be confusingly similar to the Facebook trademark.
The omission of the “h” and one “p” in the disputed domain name from the consonants comprising the Complainant’s trademark is unlikely to affect its aural perception.
...
2020-11-04 - 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.” ...
2022-09-01 - Case Details
Prior UDRP panels have held in the presence of evidence similar to that submitted here that intentional infringement to trade on the fame of another cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services as to conclude otherwise is obviously contrary to the intent of the Policy. See, Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847); see also, WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.
...
2021-12-29 - Case Details
The Complainant says the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registrations because it was the subject of Sister Sister LLC and James Charles Dickinson p/k/a “James Charles" v. Khanh Nguyen Van, NAF Case No. FA1911687 and currently holds registrations for several other domain names that misappropriate the trademarks of well-known brands and businesses such as Honda Motor Co Ltd and Nike Innovate CV.
...
2021-07-06 - Case Details
See Sound Unseen, Ltd.; Apple Bottoms, LLC; and Cornell Haynes p/k/a "Nelly" v. Patrick Vanderhorst,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0636). Thus, the previous use constitutes one of the indicia of bad faith in the context of the present discussion.
...
2021-06-28 - Case Details
Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has provided evidence to prove its rights in the TOMMY BAHAMA Mark by a preponderance of the evidence. See Madonna Ciccone p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847 (applying the preponderance of the evidence standard and finding that “a fact is proved for the purpose of reaching a decision when it appears more likely than not to be true based on the evidence”). ...
2021-06-15 - Case Details
O nome do projeto, expresso no nome de domínio em disputa, é composto por três palavras que guardam profunda relação com o formato da iniciativa do Reclamado: “arena”, o lugar que era palco dos grandes gladiadores, expressão que na releitura moderna é usada para definir os debates realizados sobre os mais diferentes temas; “neo”, o compromisso com o novo e a inovação; e “quimica”, na sua origem árabe e grega, que traz o significado de alquimia, que também pode significar a forte sintonia entre as pessoas ou entre ideias. A Resolução CGI.br/RES/2008/008/P, do Comitê Gestor da Internet no Brasil (CGI.br) – órgão incumbido da coordenação dos registros de nomes de domínio no país –, erigiu, como princípio fundamental da política de registros dominiais, a regra “first come, first served”, segundo o qual o direito ao nome de domínio será conferido ao primeiro requerente que satisfizer, quando do pedido, as exigências para o registro. ...
2020-12-14 - Case Details
WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) further states: “[P]anels have found that certain scenarios may warrant proceeding in a language other than that of the registration agreement. ...
2018-08-07 - Case Details
Respondent’s trademark application and business name consisting of the CAT name for an identical or similar activity as Complainant’s cannot give rise to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names as the overall circumstances of this case suggest that Respondent’s choice of a trademark and business name was made with the intention of riding on Complainant’s goodwill and reputation in the field of construction and mining. See Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847.
Neither can Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to resolve to a website prominently featuring a logo consisting of the word CAT together with an image of an earthmoving machine and offering identical or similar goods and services as Complainant be considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names, in accordance with paragraphs 4(c)(i) and 4(c)(iii) of the Policy, as Respondent is clearly seeking to trade on Complainant’s goodwill and reputation for her own commercial gain.
...
2018-11-06 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant provided evidence of having registered rights in a trademark for WIKIPEDIA, including a mark registered in 2006 from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, for "[p]roviding information in the field of general encyclopedic knowledge via the Internet." The registration indicates first use of the mark in January, 2001. ...
2017-10-06 - Case Details
Towns
Sole Panelist
Date: September 25, 2017
1 See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0"), section 1.7.
p>2 Id. When the relevant trademark is recognizable in the disputed domain name, the domain name normally will be considered confusingly similar to the mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
3See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.2 and cases cited therein.
4 See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3 and cases cited therein....
2017-10-04 - Case Details
The trademarks PANAVISION have been held to be famous under previous procedures carried out under the Policy (see Panavision, Inc., Panavision International, L. P. v. Roomwithnet Systems (I) P.Ltd./ Eyecircus Studio Pvt.Ltd,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0521; and Panavision International, L.P. and Panavision Inc. v. ...
2017-11-27 - Case Details
D2017-1124; SAP SE v. Lakshmi Reddy Bhumireddy and P. Hareesh,
WIPO Case No. D2017-0396; Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. Cameron Jackson,
WIPO Case No. ...
2017-12-06 - Case Details
Hoang lan / Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2016-0917, L'Oréal v. Vitaly P Pak,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0291and L'Oréal v. Rampe Purda / Privacy-Protect.org,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0870).
...
2017-08-11 - Case Details
The Respondent is using the disputed domain name to profit from Internet traffic, attracted by the HOMEAWAY mark, which is then diverted to the Respondent's website; see Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com",
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847, where the panel found that intentionally trading on the fame of another cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services.
...
2018-06-28 - Case Details