The Respondent has registered a domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark ELASTICSEARCH and which resolves to a page featuring PPC advertising in order to create a likelihood of confusion and to generate commercial gain via the P...
The Complainant also submits that the voluminous number of UDRP panel decisions which found against the Respondent and found bad-faith conduct in the Respondent’s registration of a domain name incorporating a well-known third-party trade mark constitu...
...
2023-09-29 - Case Details
Specifically,
the Respondent has removed the letter “a” and the letter “p”, and has preceded it by the letters “GB”. The
addition of the letters “GB” and the presence of typographical errors do not prevent a finding of confusing
similarity with the Complainant's well-known WHATSAPP trademark, which remains recognizable within the
disputed domain name .
...
2024-06-06 - Case Details
Here, the Respondent’s
registration and use of the Disputed Domain Names indicate that such registration and use had been done
for the specific purpose of trading upon and targeting the name and reputation of the Complainants. 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”).
...
2024-01-29 - Case Details
The Respondent's registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name indicate that such registration and use was done for the specific purpose of trading on the name and reputation of the Complainant and its YAHOO! Marks. 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" and "[t]hat purpose is a violation of the Policy, as well as U.S. ...
2014-12-31 - Case Details
Aaron Rift,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1499; and Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847).
On the other side, the advertising services provided by the Respondent to the Complainant’s main competitors show that the Respondent is well aware of the fact that Internet users associate the Trademark with the betting services provided by the Complainant. ...
2017-01-20 - Case Details
Así, lo considera también la decisión Centre National d’Art et de Culture Georges Pompidou c. Desmet Studio’s y P. Weijenberg,
Caso OMPI No. DES2015-0016, que afirma que: “En el presente caso, no habiendo contestado formalmente los Demandados a la Demanda, se aceptan como ciertas las afirmaciones razonables del Demandante y, consecuentemente, cabe que determinadas deducciones puedan perjudicar a aquél siempre que el Demandante haya aportado indicios sobre la falta de interés de los Demandados”.
...
2017-02-16 - Case Details
Así, lo considera también la decisión Centre National d’Art et de Culture Georges Pompidou c. Desmet Studio’s y P. Weijenberg,
Caso OMPI No. DES2015-0016, que afirma que: “En el presente caso, no habiendo contestado formalmente los Demandados a la Demanda, se aceptan como ciertas las afirmaciones razonables de la Demandante y, consecuentemente, cabe que determinadas deducciones puedan perjudicar a aquél siempre que la Demandante haya aportado indicios sobre la falta de interés de los Demandados”.
...
2017-02-07 - Case Details
One Star Global LLC,
Caso OMPI No. D2009-0227 , F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. P Martin,
Caso OMPI No. D2009-0323, Mejeriforeningen Danish Dairy Board v. Cykon Technology Limited,
Caso OMPI No. ...
2016-12-09 - Case Details
Upon information and belief, all of these “China Ready” domain names were registered and used for many years for the same or similar goods and services as Complainant, yet there is no indication that the Complainant has complained of these companies’ registrations and use of “China Ready.”
(p) The Respondent asserts that the Complainant brought this action in bad faith and as such, constitutes an instance of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking within the meaning of paragraph 15(e) of the Rules, based upon the complete lack of evidence that the Disputed Domain Name, consisting of generic terms, was a bad faith registration and is not being used legitimately by the Respondent. ...
2016-02-16 - Case Details
The title of the page, in white text, reads "Miltenyi Biotec P/L". Underneath the title, in red, is the text: "Miltenyi Biotec Doesn't Pay its Bills!!! Miltenyi Biotec - Financially Unstable??? ...
2015-11-06 - Case Details
However, as explained in paragraph 2.7 of WIPO Overview 2.0, a respondent's registration of a trade mark corresponding to the disputed domain name will not suffice to establish rights or legitimate interests if the overall circumstances demonstrate it was obtained primarily to circumvent the application of the UDRP. See, e.g., Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com",
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847, where the panel stated
"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, and not obtained merely to circumvent the application of the Policy…
Under the circumstances, some might view Respondent's Tunisian registration itself as evidence of bad faith because it appears to be a pretense to justify an abusive domain name registration. ...
2015-12-07 - Case Details
Complainant further argues that when the Disputed Domain Names incorporate an entire trademark with only the addition of common or descriptive words, they are still confusingly similar to the trademark. See F. 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. ...
2017-12-07 - Case Details
Although currently the website associated with the Domain Name is deactivated, it does not prevent finding of bad faith. “[P]anelists have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding”.13 One of the factors applied to passive holding doctrine is “the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put”.14 Here, the previous bad faith use of the Domain Name and lack of any explanation of possible good faith use from the Respondent make any good faith use of the Domain Name implausible.
...
2017-11-27 - Case Details
Complainant further argues that when given that the Disputed Domain Name incorporates “Sempra” with only the addition of the descriptive word “utilities,” it is still confusingly similar to the SEMPRA Marks as the addition of descriptive terms 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. ...
2018-01-11 - Case Details
Al obtener el registro del nombre de dominio en disputa, el Titular no encontró ningún impedimento en relación a tal solicitud ya que el mismo estaba libre y disponible, esto es, el mismo es concedido al primer solicitante que satisfaga, en el momento de la solicitud, las exigencias para su registro conforme a las condiciones que se describen en la Resolución CGI.br/RES/2008/008/P, del cgi.br - Comité Gestor de Internet en Brasil.
El Titular es titular de los siguientes nombres de dominio: , , , , , , , y , y es poseedor de algunas marcas ante el Instituto Nacional de Propiedad Industrial de Paraguay.
...
2018-11-16 - Case Details
D2018-0387; SAP SE v. Lakshmi Reddy Bhumireddy and P. Hareesh,
WIPO Case No. D2017-0396; Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. Cameron Jackson,
WIPO Case No. ...
2018-09-04 - Case Details
D2018-0387; SAP SE v. Lakshmi Reddy Bhumireddy and P. Hareesh,
WIPO Case No. D2017-0396; Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. Cameron Jackson,
WIPO Case No. ...
2018-07-11 - Case Details
The only difference between these two disputed domain names and the third Complainant’s WHATSAPP trade mark is an omission of the letter “p” and the addition of the letters of “a” and “s”. These common or obvious mis-spellings of a trade mark are insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain names from the third Complainant’s trade mark.
...
2018-07-10 - Case Details
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1; seePhilip Morris Products S.A. v. Whois Agent, Doman Protection Services, Inc. / P. Poon, Enc Electronics,
WIPO Case No. D2018-1823; Iseo Serrature Spa v. Intercam di Magia Preziosi srl,
WIPO Case No. ...
2018-07-06 - 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. ...
2019-04-10 - Case Details