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 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
Complainant is the registered owner of various national Australian trademarks relating to its company name
and brand PEET, inter alia, but not limited, to the following:
- word/design trademark PEET P, Australian Government / IPA Australia (“IP Australia”),
registration No.: 652300, registration date: February 3, 1995, status: active;
- word trademark PEET, IP Australia, registration No.: 1063747,
registration date: July 7, 2005, status: active.
...
2025-07-22 - 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 April 28, 2025. ...
2025-06-06 - Case Details
Ritzio Purchase Limited против Whoisguard Protected, Whoisguard, Inc. / Z-P. M,. Дело ВОИС № D2015-0295.
Б. Ответчики
Ответчики не предоставили Ответа на Жалобу и возражений против доводов Заявителя. ...
2017-01-13 - Case Details
As recorded
in section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, “[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 famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated
entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith”. ...
2023-08-25 - Case Details
An online
search of the Philippine companies registry database does not reveal the existence of a company of that
name either.1 In any case, the registration of that company name would not overcome the inference from
1 The Panel notes its general powers articulated inter alia in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the Rules and has searched the publicly available
database of Companies House Philippines at “https://companieshouse.ph” in order to evaluate the Respondent’s assertion regarding
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0134.html
page 6
the circumstances of this case that it was chosen because of its degree of similarity to the Complainant’s
mark in order to trade on the reputation of that mark. See also in this regard Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a
Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”, WIPO Case No. D2000-0847. The Respondent also alleges
that his website is only an introduction to the company’s business and does not provide any services for
users. ...
2023-08-21 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that as a result of this high-profile use the Complainant’s marks, all of which pre-date the registration of the disputed domain name on August 7, 2022 have acquired a significant goodwill and reputation. The Complainant has p...
In the absence of a Response the Panel finds the above evidence as adduced by the Complainant to be true.
5. ...
2022-11-15 - 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
See, e.g.,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. ...
2018-04-17 - Case Details
Similarly, see the finding of the panel in Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com",
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847; “…. it would be a mistake to conclude that mere registration of a trademark creates a legitimate interest under the Policy. ...
2018-04-13 - Case Details
It is well-established that non-use of a domain name 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”. ...
2018-04-12 - 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
WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) further states: “[P]anels have found that certain scenarios may warrant proceeding in a language other than that of the registration agreement. ...
2019-03-14 - Case Details
The Parties
The Complainant is Echobox Audio, LLC of Spokane, Washington, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Thomas P. Howard LLC, United States.
The Respondent is Nanci Nette of Los Angeles, California, United States.
2. ...
2019-05-16 - Case Details
Moreover, as explained at section 3.5 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, “[p]articularly with respect to “automatically” generated pay-per-click links, panels have held that a respondent cannot disclaim responsibility for content appearing on the website associated with its domain name (nor would such links ipso facto vest the respondent with rights or legitimate interests)”. ...
2018-12-21 - Case Details