Furthermore, 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; Philip Morris Incorporated v. ...
2019-01-23 - Case Details
The Complainant has attached a list containing its worldwide registrations for the trademark TATA as Annexure P to the Complaint.
The Complainant is the registered proprietor and owner of TATA in various classes before the Trade Mark Registry, India, including Registration No. 92645 dated February 16, 1944, Registration No. 92648 dated February 16, 1944, and Registration No. 1236890 dated September 16, 2003 for the word mark TATA. ...
2019-08-08 - Case Details
By failing to use the Disputed Domain Names in connection with active websites, the Respondent clearly has not used the Disputed Domain Names “in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services” and, therefore, cannot establish rights or legitimate interests pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. As numerous panels have repeatedly said, “[p]assively holding a domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services”.
To the Complainant’s knowledge, the Respondent has never been commonly known by any of the Disputed Domain Names and has never acquired any trademark or service mark rights in any of the Disputed Domain Names. ...
2019-06-07 - Case Details
The footnote to paragraph 4(a)(i) relevantly states:
“For the purposes of this [P]olicy, auDA has determined that a [‘]name … in which the complainant has rights[‘] refers to:
(a) the complainant’s company, business or other legal or trading name, as registered with the relevant Australian government authority; or
(b) the complainant’s personal name.”
...
2019-06-05 - 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
John Adem,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1480; Gordon Sumner, p/k/a Sting v. Michael Urvan,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0596; The E.W. Scripps Company v. Sinologic Industries,
WIPO Case No. ...
2020-07-16 - 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
Use that intentionally trades on the fame of another cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services (See: Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847). The Complainant provided evidence that typing in the Disputed Domain Names diverts traffic to a website for replicas and simulators of racing cars.
...
2011-09-22 - 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
Sin embargo, ello no se produce de modo automático en todo caso, si la concurrencia de factores excepcionales pudieran llevar al Experto a considerar de otro modo, en particular cuando, de las circunstancias concomitantes, cupiera inferirse que el registro de la referida marca tuvo por objeto circunvenir la Política (véase, en particular, Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
Caso OMPI No. D2000-0847; y Chemical Works of Gedeon Richter Plc. v. ...
2012-09-11 - Case Details
Besides, the Respondent intentionally registered and uses the Domain Name in an attempt to capitalize on the fame of the trademark BELSTAFF and to exploit the marketing efforts expended by the Complainant, which shall not be deemed as bona fide. See Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisis 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”).
...
2012-07-23 - Case Details
Richard Tonetti, supra: "[…] non-response is indicative of a lack of interest inconsistent with an attitude of ownership and a belief in the lawfulness of one’s own rights."; 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 can not constitute a "bona fide" offering of goods or services"; Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ...
2012-06-19 - Case Details
The Respondent misleads the Internet users by using the Complainant's trademark and popularity (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 can not constitute a "bona fide" offering of goods or services").
...
2012-06-29 - Case Details
D2012-1198 (“ the supplemental filings should address relevant issues which were not known by the filing party at the time that it filed its documents”); Mani Brothers, LLC v. Lincoln Gasking,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0097 (“[p]anels that have allowed additional pleadings generally do so only when the response includes a matter that the complainant could not reasonably have anticipated when the complaint was filed”).
...
2012-08-21 - Case Details
As the Complainant pointed out in the Complaint, “[p]roducts purporting to be Swarovski products would not have been advertised on the Infringing Website if the Respondent was unaware of Swarovski’s reputation”. ...
2012-08-20 - 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
Complainant must satisfy its burden by a preponderance of the evidence, which means that in light of the evidence, Complainant’s allegation must be on balance more likely than not. See Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com",
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847; see also paragraph 4.7, WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”). ...
2013-10-02 - Case Details
The absence of rights or legitimate interests is established if a complainant makes out a prima facie case and the respondent enters no response. Id., (citing De Agostini S. p. A. v. Marco Cialone,
WIPO Case No. DTV2002-0005).
It is uncontested that the use of Complainant’s trademark in the Disputed Domain Name is unauthorized. ...
2013-05-27 - Case Details
La Défenderesse est Informatique Campus (devenue Sàrl Ingésup) de Paris, France, représentée par le Cabinet P. Cussac, France.
2. Noms de domaine et unité d’enregistrement
Le litige concerne les noms de domaine , et .
...
2013-05-27 - Case Details
Oktober 2012 ergibt als auch aus dem Umstand, dass er die in deutscher Sprache verfasste E-Mail des J. P. Huster vom 3. Mai 2012 weitergeleitet bekommen hat. Angesichts dessen dient es vorliegend dem Interesse beider Parteien, wenn das Beschwerdepanel im Rahmen seiner Ermächtigung gemäß Paragraf 11(a) der Verfahrensordnung entscheidet, Deutsch als Verfahrenssprache festzulegen.
...
2012-12-14 - Case Details