Complainant contends that the test for confusing similarity under the Policy is confined to a comparison of the disputed domain name and the trademark alone, independent of the products or services for which the disputed domain name is used or other marketing and use factors. See, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. P Martin,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0323.
Complainant submits that it is well established that the specific top level of a domain name such as “.com”, “.org” or “.net” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar. ...
2013-09-03 - Case Details
Factual Background
Complainants are North Atlantic Operating Company, Inc., and its affiliated company, National Tobacco Company, L. P.1 (referred to herein as Complainant, unless otherwise expressly indicated). North Atlantic Operating Co. ...
2013-07-16 - Case Details
The Parties
The Complainant is Volkswagen AG of Wolfsburg, Germany, represented by Golebiowska Krawczyk Roszkowski i Partnerzy Kancelaria Adwokacko-Radcowska Sp. p., Poland.
The Respondent is Yavuz Tokgoz of Ankara, Turkey.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with FBS Inc. ...
2017-06-01 - Case Details
Complainant further argues that when the Disputed Domain Names incorporate an entire trademark with only the addition of a common word like “Egypt,” they are still confusingly similar to the trademark as the addition of a geographical identifier does not eliminate the likelihood of confusion. See, Hoffmann-LaRoche AG v. P Martin,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0323; Dixons Group Plc. v. Mr. Abu Abdullaah,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0843; V&S Vin & Sprit AB v. ...
2017-05-30 - Case Details
Since the Respondent did not provide any argument or evidence in this case, its use of the disputed domain name, which misleadingly trades on the goodwill of the Complainant, 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 second element of the Policy has been fulfilled.
...
2016-10-20 - Case Details
D2000-0003, as follows:
i) The Complainant's wide reputation has been recognized by UDRP panels, with whom this Panel agrees (see e.g., ASSA ABLOY AB v. P D S AB,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0442). Therefore this Panel considers that the evidence filed by the Complainant adequately proves that the ASSA ABLOY mark is widely known;
ii) The Respondent has provided no evidence whatsoever of any actual or contemplated good faith use of the disputed domain names;
iii) Respondent Sharif and Respondent Zanhani own or have owned several domain name registrations incorporating third party trademarks (or variations thereof) such as the following:
a) Respondent Sharif: , , and .
...
2016-04-18 - Case Details
The Parties
The Complainant is Volkswagen AG of Wolfsburg, Germany, represented by Gołębiowska Krawczyk Roszkowski i Partnerzy Kancelaria Adwokacko-Radcowska Sp. p., Poland.
The Respondent is Hui Min Wang, Wang Hui Min, 王慧敏 of Taiyuan, Shanxi, China, self-represented.
2. ...
2017-06-28 - Case Details
With respect to those of the Disputed Domain Names listed in categories 3, 4, and 5 above: The Panel considers section 1.15 of WIPO Overview 3.0, which states that, “[i]n some instances, panels have… taken note of the content of the website associated with a domain name to confirm confusing similarity whereby it appears prima facie that the respondent seeks to target a trademark through the disputed domain name.” See also section 1.7 of WIPO Overview 3.0: “[P]anels have also found that the overall facts and circumstances of a case (including relevant website content) may support a finding of confusing similarity, particularly where it appears that the respondent registered the domain name precisely because it believed that the domain name was confusingly similar to a mark held by the complainant.”
...
2020-05-19 - Case Details
To put this in the terms of the Respondent’s own language, the Panel quotes from the Respondent’s website: “We stand for the right to keep what we legally acquired and [p]lease make sure you understand.” In agreement with both those principles, the Panel finds that the Respondent is not entitled to keep this because the Domain Name was not in fact legally acquired.
...
2021-01-28 - Case Details
VistaPrint Technologies Ltd,
WIPO Case No. D2015-0886; and Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847).
It is acknowledged that once the Panel finds a prima facie case is made by a complainant, the burden of production under the second element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...
2021-02-18 - Case Details
Até mesmo porque, segundo o art. 1o da Resolução CGI.br/RES/2008/008/P do Comitê Gestor da Internet no Brasil, via de regra, um nome de domínio disponível para registro é concedido ao primeiro requerente que satisfaz, quando do requerimento, as exigências para o registro do mesmo.
...
2020-01-16 - Case Details
The Complainant's trademark consists of the words "Perle Bleue" written in white letters with a gold spot between them, above which there is a stylized, reversed letter "p" in gold, joined to a gold letter "b".
With reference to the assessment of identity or confusing similarity in cases where a complainant relies on trademark registrations containing design elements, section 1.10 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 states that:
"Panel assessment of identity or confusing similarity involves comparing the (alpha-numeric) domain name and the textual components of the relevant mark. ...
2018-02-12 - Case Details
Aprovechar el reconocimiento de las marcas de la Promovente para atraer usuarios de Internet con el fin de obtener ganancias, no confiere derechos o intereses legítimos sobre dicho nombre de dominio en favor del Titular (ver, mutatis mutandi, Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com",
Caso OMPI No. D2000-0847, y Philipp Plein v. Privacy Protection Service INC d/b/a PrivacyProtect.org / Norma Brandon, cheapphilippplein,
Caso OMPI No. ...
2017-11-17 - Case Details
In response to the written notification of the Complaint, an email was sent to the Center on August 2, 2017, from an employee of a business called "RightParks P/L trading as Partsheaven" located in the State of Victoria, Australia, which is the same area as the physical address details in the WhoIs record for the Respondent. ...
2017-09-19 - Case Details
The Respondent, on the other hand, claims that “[p]ursuant to a recent agreement among members of the Tabibi family, in June, 2017, [Alexander] Tabibi acquired the interests of Carlo and Antoinette [Tabibi], and thus became the sole shareholder and executive officer of the Respondent ZCapital Inc. while this Proceeding has been pending.” ...
2017-09-11 - Case Details
Fourthly, this Panel finds that the addition of the generic term “ze” does not constitute an element so as to avoid confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy (see F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. P. Martin,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0323; Ansell Healthcare Products Inc. v. Australian Therapeutics Supplies Pty, Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2018-02-02 - Case Details
My colleagues appear to endorse these standards, see Panel opinion, p. 5, 1 but excuse the Complainant or its representative because the"Complainant based in India, given this resemblance and not being familiar at the time of filing the Complaint whether there was any connection between the Respondent and India, decided to file the Complaint." ...
2019-12-16 - Case Details
In the end, however, consistent with decisions of the learned panelists in Greyson International above, Finlandia-Uistin Oy v. Juha P. Raatikainen,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0570 and SPECS Surface Nano Analysis GmbH v. Rickmer Kose / Domain Name Administrator, PrivacyProtect.org,
WIPO Case No. ...
2011-03-10 - Case Details
Zhijun Guo,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0184; LEGO Juris A/S v. P N S Enterprises,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0170; LEGO Juris A/S v. David Palmer,
WIPO Case No. D2008-1826; LEGO Juris A/S v. ...
2010-04-06 - Case Details
Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, Complainant is required to establish a prima facie case that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the contested domain name. See TotalFinaElf E&P USA, Inc. v. Marylin Farnes, NAF Claim No. 117028 (“In order to bring a claim under the Policy, Complainant must first establish a prima facie case. ...
2012-02-08 - Case Details