WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Alfred Berg Holding Aktiebolag v. P D S
Case No. D2008-0566
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Alfred Berg Holding Aktiebolag, Box 893, 101 37 Stockholm, Sweden, represented by Setterwalls Advokatbyrå, Sweden.
The Respondent is P D S, Stockholm, Sweden.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Network Solutions, LLC.
3. ...
2008-06-02 - Case Details
The disputed domain name merely misses the letter “P” from Complainant's trademark. The subtraction of the letter “P” to Complainant's trademark does not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the trademark. ...
2009-03-10 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 13, 2010.
The Center appointed William P. Knight as the sole panelist in this matter on December 28, 2010. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. ...Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
William P. Knight
Sole Panelist
Dated: January 2, 2011...
2011-01-24 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondents’ default on September 10, 2010.
The Center appointed Andrew P. Bridges as the sole panelist in this matter on September 15, 2010. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. ...Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name, <1800thelaw2.biz>, be transferred to the Complainant.
Andrew P. Bridges
Sole Panelist
Dated: October 16, 2010...
2010-10-25 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 5, 2011.
The Center appointed Thomas P. Pinansky as the sole panelist in this matter on January 11, 2011. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. ...Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraph 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Thomas P. Pinansky
Sole Panelist
Dated: January 24, 2011...
2011-02-04 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 24, 2012.
The Center appointed William P. Knight as the sole panelist in this matter on June 6, 2012. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. ...Accordingly, the Panel orders in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
William P. Knight
Sole Panelist
Dated: June 11, 2012...
2012-06-22 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 8, 2013.
The Center appointed William P. Knight as the sole panelist in this matter on May 10, 2013. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. ...Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.
William P. Knight
Sole Panelist
Date: May 17, 2013...
2013-05-30 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 10, 2015.
The Center appointed William P. Knight as the sole panelist in this matter on April 16, 2015. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. ...Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
William P. Knight
Sole Panelist
Date: April 17, 2015...
2015-04-28 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts that:
i) apart from a typographical error by way of the initial letter “p” in pziprecruiter.com, the disputed domain
name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ZIPRECRUITER trade mark, in which it
has various registered rights;
ii) the Respondent does not have any trade mark rights in the names PZIPRECRUITER or
ZIPRECRUITER or any similar term;
iii) in the circumstances, no rights or legitimate interests arise from the Respondent’s use of the domain
name for PPC advertising;
iv) it has raised a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or a legitimate interest in the domain
name, that it has therefore shifted the burden to Respondent to demonstrate its rights or legitimate
interest, and the Respondent has failed to do so;
v) the conduct outlined above (in particular the use of a typo-variant of the Complainant’s trade mark,
and its use for PPC advertising) is evidence that the Respondent has used the Complainant’s rights
and the domain name in a confusing way for commercial benefit, and that this amounts to evidence of
bad faith use and registration;
page 3
vi) the allegation of the Respondent’s bad faith use and registration is reinforced by the fact that the
Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent, and the Respondent ignored the letter
rather than provide a justification for its conduct.
...Identical or Confusingly Similar
Given that the disputed domain name i) contains the Complainant’s ZIPRECRUITER trade mark in full, and
ii) differs only by addition of the letter “p” at the beginning of the domain name, creating a misspelling or typo-
variant of the Complainant’s trade mark, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the first criteria.
...
2023-06-29 - Case Details
Die Gesuchstellerin ist Inhaberin der schweizerischen Marke ZÜHLKE (NR. P-545484) für Dienstleistungen in den Klassen 35, 41 und 42. Diese Marke wurde am 27. Januar 2006 hinterlegt und am 16. ...Bestand von Kennzeichenrechten
Die Gesuchstellerin hat dargetan, dass sie Inhaberin der schweizerischen Marke ZÜHLKE (NR. P-545484) für Dienstleistungen in den Klassen 35, 41 und 42 ist. Die Gesuchstellerin hat somit den Bestand von Markenrechten dargetan.
...
2021-05-03 - Case Details
A Reclamante afirma que não foi concedida qualquer licença ou autorização para que a Reclamada utilize
ou registre o nome de domínio em disputa. Além disso, argumenta que “[p]ainéis passados sustentaram
que um Reclamado não era comummente conhecido por um nome de domínio controvertido se a
informação WHOIS não fosse similar ao nome de domínio controvertido”. ...Acrescenta a Reclamante que o nome de domínio em disputa direciona para uma “página de
estacionamento com links comerciais” e que, ao analisar casos semelhantes, “[p]ainéis anteriores
concluíram que não se trata de uma oferta de boa-fé de bens ou serviços ou de uso legítimo não comercial
ou justo”.
...
2025-08-15 - Case Details
Kui Kostja selliseid asjakohaseid tõendeid ei esita, siis tuleb lugeda teine tingimus täidetuks.
(WIPO Overview 3.0, p 2.1.)1
Olles tutvunud vaidlusasja materjalidega, leiab Senat, et Hageja on põhistanud esmapilgul usutavalt (prima
facie) asjaolu, et Kostjal puudub vaidlusaluse domeeninime suhtes õigus või õigustatud huvi. ...Senat märgib, et vaidlusalune domeeninimi tekitab suure ohu, et seda kaudselt seostatakse Hagejaga.
WIPO Overview 3.0, p 2.5.1.
Ülaltoodu valguses leiab Senat, et ADR Reeglite paragrahvi B(11)(d)(1)(ii) tingimus on täidetud.
...
2024-09-13 - Case Details
ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Loomis Sayles & Company. L. P. v. Superior Equipment, Jol company
Case No. D2024-2459
1. The Parties
Complainant is Loomis Sayles & Company. ...Steinhardt
Sole Panelist
Date: August 7, 2024
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Loomis Sayles & Company. L. P. v. Superior Equipment, Jol company
Case No. D2024-2459
1. The Parties
A. Complainant
B. Respondent
A. ...
2024-08-09 - Case Details
The Claimant owns Swiss Trademarks containing the word “RAIFFEISEN”, in particular:
- Word Mark No 2P-411923, in international classes 8, 14, 16, 18, 24, 25, 28, 34, 35, 36, 41 and 42 registered on August 22, 1994.
- Word picture mark No P-4151754, in international classes 35, 36 and 42 registered on May 26, 1998.
- Word picture mark No P-543754, in international classes 14, 16, 18, 25, 27, 28, 35, 36 38, 41 and 42 registered on March 13, 2006.
...
2016-06-28 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Fabege Fastigheter Sverige AB v. P D S, Tony Lennartsson
Case No. D2016-0185
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Fabege Fastigheter Sverige AB of Stockholm, Sweden, represented by Nordisk Media Utveckling AB, Sweden.
The Respondents are P D S of Sweden and Tony Lennartsson of Kista, Sweden.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the "Disputed Domain Name") is registered with Network Solutions, LLC (the "Registrar").
3. ...
2016-04-11 - Case Details
The Panel further finds that the disputed domain name is almost identical to HEPSİBURADA.COM trademark insofar as only the letter “p” is repeated in the disputed domain name. See section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).
...The Panel believes that the additional same letter (“p” in this case) is a blatant example of typosquatting thus bad faith where the spelling of a trademark has been altered by the addition of only one letter.
...
2019-05-27 - Case Details
Consolidation is proper, so the Complainant’s request for consolidation is granted.
Paragraph 10(e) of the Rules states that a “[p]anel shall decide a request by a Party to consolidate multiple domain name disputes in accordance with the Policy and these Rules”. Paragraph 10(c) of the Rules provides, in relevant part, that “the [p]anel shall ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition”. Section 4.11.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) summarizes the consensus view of UDRP panels on the consolidation of multiple respondents and provides that where a complaint is filed against multiple respondents, panels consider whether the domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control, and whether the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties.
...
2019-12-05 - Case Details
The Panel finds it appropriate that the Respondents herein be consolidated in one matter, in accordance with the Rules, for the following reasons: (i) the registrant details for the three disputed domain names are almost identical; (ii) the disputed domain names all use the same privacy protection service; (iii) all disputed domain names comprise a misspelling of the Complainant’s mark with no additional terms; and, (iv) the use to which the disputed domain names have been put is the same. Paragraph 10(e) of the Rules states that a “[p]anel shall decide a request by a Party to consolidate multiple domain name disputes in accordance with the Policy and these Rules.” Paragraph 10(c) of the Rules provides, in relevant part, that “the [p]anel shall ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition.”
7. Discussion and Findings
To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied:
(i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and
(iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
...
2019-11-27 - Case Details
This entitles the Administrative Panel to draw any such inferences
from such default as it considers appropriate pursuant to Paragraph 14 (b) of
the Rules (see e.g. WIPO Cases Nos. D2000-0009,
p. 6 or D2000-0867, p. 6).
It is the Sole Panelist’s finding that the Complainant has established that the trade and service mark "REVIGLASS" has been known in Europe for a significant period of time. ...
2001-06-18 - Case Details
The Complainant is represented in this proceeding by: Robert P. Haney, Esq., Covington & Burling, 1330 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10019, U.S.A.
...The Respondent reportedly stated it "would be willing to develop the web site into a promotional site for the Complainant" (Complaint p.8).
The Complainant rejected the Respondent’s offer of collaboration and insisted the disputed domain name be turned over to the Complainant. ...
2001-03-27 - Case Details