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. ...
2015-05-29 - Case Details
Noname.com, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0240; Madonna Ciccone p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com",
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847 (Panel concluded that "…use which intentionally trades on the fame of another cannot constitute a ''bona fide'' offering of goods or services. ...
2015-05-27 - Case Details
Noname.com, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0240; Madonna Ciccone p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com",
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847 (Panel concluded that "…use which intentionally trades on the fame of another cannot constitute a 'bona fide' offering of goods or services. ...
2015-05-27 - Case Details
The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to intentionally trade on the well-known mark of another, in order to lure Internet users to a website unrelated to the trademark owner, cannot and does not 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).
For the above cited reasons, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy are therefore fulfilled.
...
2014-05-01 - Case Details
The Complainants contend on account of the highly distinctive nature, the Trademark JINDAL STAINLESS
has acquired an excellent reputation and exclusively denotes the conglomeration of members forming the O.
P. JINDAL Group, which is well known for its high quality of products manufactured and/or services rendered
under the Trademark JINDAL STAINLESS.
...
2022-07-28 - Case Details
The disputed domain names no. 2, 11, 18, and 27 incorporate the figure “500” and the letter “p”.
The disputed domain name no. 25 incorporates the figure “500” in combination with the term “trades”.
...
2022-03-28 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is associated with a
website which features the Complainant’s PUBLIX trademark, the Complainant’s circular green lowercase “p”
logo, and the Complainant’s typical website look and feel. It invites Internet users to check the balance on
the Complainant’s gift cards and to download files from another website, and requests the Complainant’s
employees to log into their personal employee account via a dedicated login facility. ...
2022-05-04 - Case Details
The Parties
Complainant is Business Debt Solutions, Inc., United States of America (“U.S.” or “United States”),
represented by Vedder Price P. C., United States of America.
Respondent is Domains by Proxy, LLC, U.S. / Francisco Mercado, U.S.
2. ...
2022-05-03 - Case Details
To conclude otherwise would mean that a Respondent
could rely on intentional infringement to demonstrate a legitimate interest, an interpretation that 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 in Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. v. ...
2023-01-05 - Case Details
‘Use which intentionally
trades on the fame of another cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services’: Madonna Ciccone,
p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com” (D2000-0847)”).
The abovementioned precedents are relevant to this case since, as proven by the Complainant, the website
to which the disputed domain name resolves comprises unauthorized links to download the Complainant’s
software, as well as third-party software products.
...
2022-11-28 - 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.” ...
2023-12-13 - 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”. ...
2022-02-22 - Case Details
Here, there is no sense that the disputed domain name has
been registered to target the Complainant or indeed even in the knowledge of the Complainant, nor that the
registrant contact details provided by the Respondent to the Registrar are in any manner pretextual (see
e.g., Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”, WIPO Case No. D2000-0847).
There is no sense from the present use of the disputed domain name, being the Registrar’s parking page,
that it is in any sense questionable or that the Complainant’s NALLI trademark is being targeted by it.
...
2023-02-13 - Case Details
In this regard the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.10.1 states: “[p]anels have
recognized that merely registering a domain name comprised of a dictionary word or phrase does not by
itself automatically confer rights or legitimate interests on the respondent; panels have held that mere
arguments that a domain name corresponds to a dictionary term/phrase will not necessarily suffice. ...
2023-02-08 - Case Details
Wilson Pinheiro Jabur
Especialista
Data: 8 de outubro de 2021
Local: São Paulo, SP, Brasil
1 Convenção da União de Paris, segundo a revisão de Estocolmo, de 14/07/1967, promulgada pelo decreto nº 635, de 21/08/1992, e ratificada pelo decreto nº 1.263, de 10/10/1994.
2 https://registro.br/dominio/contrato/. Acesso em 06/10/2021,
3 V. p. ex., REsp 1755536/RN, Rel. Ministro PAULO DE TARSO SANSEVERINO, TERCEIRA TURMA, julgado em 23/02/2021, DJe 01/03/2021.
4 De acordo com o art. 22 do Regulamento, o NIC.br procederá à implementação desta decisão no décimo quinto dia útil após o recebimento da notificação da decisão. ...
2021-10-20 - Case Details
The Respondents’ registration and use of the Disputed Domain Names 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 OCULUS and QUEST trademarks. 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”).
...
2021-12-08 - Case Details
ICG,
WIPO Case No. D2005-1150, “the consensus view of UDRP [p]anelists is that a pattern of conduct can involve multiple UDRP cases with similar fact situations or a single case where the respondent has registered multiple domain names which are similar to known trademarks...” ...
2021-12-03 - 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)”. ...
2023-02-28 - 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 to a famous or widely-known trade mark by an
unaffiliated entity (particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive
term) can by itself create a presumption of bad faith”. ...
2023-03-10 - Case Details
Prior UDRP panels have specifically found use of a disputed domain name capitalizing on a complainant’s
trademark to resolve to a website for illegitimate or fraudulent purposes such as for the sale of infringing
products or phishing for consumer personal information does not represent a bona fide use of the disputed
domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to paragraph
4(c)(iii). See, Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”, WIPO Case No.
D2000-0847; see also Valentino S.p.A. v. ...
2023-06-22 - Case Details