However, 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",
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847. Although the
Complainant’s mark cannot not be regarded as famous, it is clear from the content
of the Respondent’s website during the 2002 festival that, despite his assertion
to the contrary, the Respondent intended to attract to his site Internauts expecting
to find a site associated with the Complainant. ...
2003-04-10 - Case Details
Quantum Computer
Services, Inc., OMPI D2000-0847, Madonna
Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna vs. Dan Parisini, OMPI
D2000-0867, Isabelle Adjani vs. Second Orbit Communications, Incs.).
...
2003-02-04 - Case Details
On this webpage, it is alleged that the domain name was "introduced" as "K-Yobo.com", "Yobo" being a common Korean name for one spouse to call another (Complaint, p 10). After the transfer to the present Respondent, it appears that the domain name was linked to a website for a Japanese movie with the title of "Sono otoko, kyob ni tsuki" meaning "The Man, to Ferocity" in English ((Complaint, Annex 13). ...
2003-04-01 - 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", WIPO
case D2000-0847 (October 12, 2000).
The Complainant has established this element of its case.
...
2002-11-19 - Case Details
It can be
noted that
the notion
of registration
has already
been stretched
to encompass
subsequent
acquisition
of a domain
name (see
Madonna
Ciccone,
p/k/a Madonna
v. Dan Parisi
and "Madonna.com",
WIPO
Case No.
D2000-0847).
Thus, the
fact that
Respondent's
acts in
respect
of the Domain
Name are
not technically
a registration
or an acquisition
should not
prevent
a finding
of "registration
in bad faith"
within the
meaning
of paragraph
4b) of the
Policy.
...
2003-08-27 - Case Details
reference here is made to annex Q between annex M and N as opposed to the second Annex Q after Annex P)
Although Respondent was served with these proceedings and had an opportunity to confirm these facts as well as the proposed evidence or put forward its own evidence to show its entitlement to the Domain Names and its legitimate interest in registering them Respondent has not availed itself of this opportunity.
...
2003-08-01 - Case Details
The Panel infers that the infringement was made with full knowledge and intent.
In Madonna
Ciccone,
p/k/a Madonna
v. Dan Parisi
and "Madonna.com"
(WIPO
Case No.
D2000-0847),
the panel
observed
that, "use
which intentionally
trades on
the fame
of another
can not
constitute
a ‘bona
fide’ offering
of goods
or services.
...
2003-08-21 - Case Details
Carl Seigler, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0984, Juventus F.C. S. p. A v. Sergio Braganca, WIPO
Case No. D2000-1466 and Microsoft Corporation v. StepWeb, WIPO
Case No. ...
2003-12-22 - 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", WIPO
Case No. D2000-0847. The Respondent’s prior knowledge of the Complainants’
famous mark and the content of the Respondent’s website lead the Panel to conclude
that the Respondent is seeking intentionally to trade on the fame of the Complainants’
mark.
...
2004-02-06 - Case Details
Complainant has asserted that "Supreme Global Service (SGS)" is a non existing entity, dictinct from Inspectorate. Complaint-Exh. "P"-CompuMark report. Complaint II A (9).
The Panel considers that Respondent´s assertions concerning Supreme Global Service lack credibility, on the following grounds:
First, clauses 1 to 4 clearly consist of business in the field of herbal products, and do not relate at all to networking business. ...Further, the Respondent in this proceeding is Inspectorate, and not "Supreme Global Service". Pursuant to Rule 1 ("Definitions") "(p)arty means a Complainant or a Respondent". The Panel´s decision can only affect Parties. It was Inspectorate that registered the domain names and no other entity. ...
2000-03-20 - Case Details
However, the Panel follows the guidance provided by WIPO Overview 3.0,
section 4.15, which states that “[p]anels have broadly noted that insofar as the UDRP system is designed to
operate in a global context, while rooted in general trademark law principles, in its own terms UDRP
jurisprudence generally would not require resort to particular national laws”. ...
2024-01-16 - Case Details
JPM (word), Swiss trademark with registration number P-464538, registered on September 1, 1999.
JPM (word), United Kingdom trademark with registration number UK00901103209, registered on
April 13, 2000.
...
2025-08-29 - Case Details
Proactiva, WIPO
Case No. D2012-0182; Mercado Libre Inc v. P Mercado Pago, Pedro Yukio Sato, WIPO Case No.
D2022-0624; WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.
The Panel therefore finds the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the Mark for the purposes of
satisfying paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2025-09-15 - Case Details
The Complainant is the owner of United States trademark registration number 3351550 for the word mark
FUTURE EDUCATORS ASSOCIATION, registered on December 11, 2007 in International Class 41 for
“[p]roviding educational mentoring services and programs for middle school and high school students
interested in the teaching profession.” ...
2026-02-19 - Case Details
Although the Complainant does not specify which, if any, of the factors set forth in paragraph 4(b) of the
Policy is applicable here, the Panel has no difficulty finding bad faith based on the strength and
distinctiveness of the GIBSON DUNN Trademark as well as the typographical nature of the Disputed Domain
Name. See, e.g., WIPO Overview 3.1, sections 3.1.4 (“[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 well-known trademark, and particularly in the
case of coined or fanciful marks, can by itself create a presumption of bad faith”); and section 3.2.1 (“a typo
of a widely-known mark” and “a clear absence of rights or legitimate interests coupled with no credible
explanation for the respondent’s choice of the domain name” are indicative of bad faith).
...
2026-07-10 - Case Details
And in
any case, any consent has been terminated simultaneously with the end of the [P]arties’ business
relationship several years ago”.
The Complainant states that this document cannot be regarded as a trademark license, because it is
executed solely by the Complainant’s representative and is therefore not bilateral as a trademark license
typically would be. ...
2026-07-01 - Case Details
The Complainant is a member of Standard & Poor’s (S&P) 500 Index, and its
common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) under the symbol EFX.
...
2022-08-30 - Case Details
– the “h” in the word “shopping” is repeated;
e. – the second “p” in the word “shopping” is replaced with the adjacent letter
“o”;
f. – the “g” in the word “shopping” is replaced with the adjacent letter, “h”;
and
g. ...
2022-12-08 - Case Details
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution P...
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 8, 2023. ...
2023-07-18 - Case Details
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution P...
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 30, 2023. ...
2023-07-18 - Case Details