As already found by previous panels, a complainant’s inability to establish registration of disputed domain names in bad faith will generally be fatal to its case under the Policy – and the Panel makes such finding on the record in the present case, (e.g., Finlandia-Uistin Oy v. Juha P. Raatikainen,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0570; Telaxis Communications Corp. v. William E. Minkle,
WIPO Case No. ...
2011-11-22 - Case Details
The Complainant also has not licensed, permitted or authorized the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademark. In Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com",
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847 the panel stated that “use which intentionally trades on the fame of another can not constitute a ‘bona fide’ offering of goods or services”.
...
2011-11-11 - Case Details
D2002-0998 where the Panel held that “[a]lthough the ‘.org’ TLD may have been intended originally for non-trading organisations, its use is not restricted to such organizations and many Internet users are not aware of the original purpose of the different TLDs. The [p]anel has no doubt that the ‘.org’ suffix would not dispel confusion caused by the use of the Complainant’s well-known mark.” ...
2011-11-09 - Case Details
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. ...
2011-05-05 - Case Details
In fact, the Panel sees no plausible explanation for Respondent’s adoption and use of the terms “allstateinsurance” and “encompassinsurnace” in the disputed domain names and, accordingly, concludes that the disputed domain names were selected and used by Respondent to take advantage of the notoriety associated with the “All State” name and the goodwill attached to the “Encompass” name, with the intent to attract for commercial gain Internet users. See Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com",
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847.
In short, Complainant has satisfied its burden of providing sufficient evidence to make a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and Respondent has failed to provide the Panel with any of the types of evidence set forth in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy from which the Panel might conclude that Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. ...
2011-04-20 - Case Details
On the issue of registration, the Complainant contends as follows: “The term SKYPE is neither generic nor a dictionary term but on the contrary it is a made up and invented term consisting of the highly unlikely combination of the letters S-K-Y-P-E which is exclusively associated with the Complainant and its software” and that this is indicative of bad faith registration by the Respondent. ...
2011-06-09 - Case Details
One matter which has given the Panel cause for pause, is that the Respondent apparently still held a registered DURACELL Community Trademark, in respect of goods in International Classes 32 and 33, when the Complaint was filed. However, in Madonna Ciccone P/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and Madonna.com,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847, the panel said:
“It would be a mistake to conclude that mere registration of a trademark creates a legitimate interest under the Policy… To establish cognizable rights, the overall circumstances should demonstrate that the registration was obtained in good faith for the purpose of making bona fide use of the mark in the jurisdiction where the mark is registered…”
Similarly, in Beca Inc v. ...
2011-07-21 - Case Details
The Panel also agrees that there is no bona fide offering by Respondents, since there is no indication that Respondents have any relationship to Complainant or are offering products or services related to Complainant or its GARANTI-derivative marks. See e.g., 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…").
...
2010-12-21 - Case Details
Merely establishing a business name and registering a domain name to trade off another’s reputation, especially where the Respondent is offering goods and services in competition to the Complainant, does not suffice to establish a right or legitimate interest safe harbor for the purpose of the Policy. Madonna Ciccone p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com",
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847 is instructive on this issue. ...
2011-04-14 - Case Details
In addition, the Panel sees no plausible explanation for Respondent’s adoption and use of the names “allstatemahem”, “allstatemayheminsurance”, “wwwallstateagent”, “whyallstateagent”, “allstateroadservice” and “allstatema” in the disputed domain names and, accordingly, concludes that the disputed domain names were selected and used by Respondent to take advantage of the notoriety enjoyed by the ALLSTATE trademark and the association with other trademarks used by Complainant, with the intent to attract for commercial gain Internet users. See Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com",
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847.
In short, Complainant has satisfied its burden of providing sufficient evidence to make a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and Respondent has failed to provide the Panel with any of the types of evidence set forth in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy from which the Panel might conclude that Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. ...
2011-04-08 - Case Details
On that basis, the Complainant says that;
- the first disputed domain name () is identical to its trade mark, save that the “u” has been omitted;
- the second disputed domain name () is identical, save that the “u” and “p” have been transposed;
- the third disputed domain name () is identical, save that an addition “u” has been inserted;
- the fourth disputed domain name () is identical, save that an additional “r” has been inserted.
...
2014-11-21 - Case Details
Moreover, Respondent’s use of one of the Domain Names to direct visitors to a website that imitates Complainant’s own site, with links that direct visitors to competitive sites, evidences that Respondent registered the Domain Names to deceptively attract and then misdirect Internet users for Respondent’s own commercial gain, which constitutes bad faith. See, Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847 (registration for the purpose of profiting off of another’s trademark constitutes bad faith); and ITT Industries, Inc. v Katherine Kliszcz,
WIPO Case No. ...
2012-12-10 - Case Details
It was likely that the respondent in that case used it for anonymity (Gordon Summer, p/k/a Sting v. Michael Urvam,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0596).
In the present case, the evidence presented by the Respondent reveals that the Respondent has been using the name “Remy Martin” or “The Remy Martin” on the Internet. ...
2013-10-02 - 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. ...
2013-02-22 - Case Details
Alisia Uzun,
WIPO Case No. D2008-1138 citing Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847.
There is no bona fide offering of goods or services by Respondent. ...
2010-10-08 - Case Details
Since Respondent’s website at the disputed domain name contains links to competitors of Complainants in addition to the link to the website of Complainant Haliç Televizyon Ve Radyo Yayinciliği A.Ş., the Panel agrees. See also 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…to conclude otherwise would mean that a Respondent could rely on intentional infringement to demonstrate a legitimate interest…").
...
2010-09-08 - Case Details
Factual Background
Complainant owns trademark registrations for the mark INTERHOME, including Swiss trademark registration number P-470968 for services in class 42 with a priority date of January 12, 2000 and International Trademark Registration number 740788 for services in class 42, which is protected for Denmark.
...
2010-10-28 - 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. ...
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