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 1, 2023. ...
2023-07-07 - Case Details
Procedural Issues: Admissibility of Late Response and Parties’ Supplemental Filings
Further to section 4.6 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third
Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), “[p]aragraph 10 of the UDRP Rules vests the panel with the authority to
determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of the evidence, and also to conduct the
proceedings with due expedition”. ...
2024-02-22 - Case Details
While both parties acknowledge that Respondent was once a
distributor of Complainant’s products in 2005, “[p]anels tend to assess claimed respondent rights or
legitimate interests in the present, i.e., with a view to the circumstances prevailing at the time of the filing of
the complaint.” ...
2024-06-04 - Case Details
The Panel notes that on September 24, 2024, that is just a few days after the registration of both disputed
domain names (i.e., September 16, 2024), the Complainant sent an email to the Respondent, using the
contact details on the website at the disputed domain name , in order to enquire about the
activity field of the relevant website: the Panel finds hard to consider as a mere coincidence the fact that on
the same day, namely September 24, 2024, the Respondent filed the application for the registration of the
trademark GAWKER in United Kingdom, and after three days, namely on September 27, 2024, the
Respondent incorporated the company Gawker Limited in United Kingdom. See e.g., in this respect
Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”, WIPO Case No. D2000-0847.
In any case, the disputed domain names and the Respondent’s company name have been registered many
years after the Complainant’s distinctive trademark has become famous in the media field. ...
2025-01-31 - Case Details
The sole difference between the address indicated for
and the one mentioned for and
is the presence of a letter “P” after the province of Guangdong in the postal
address indicated for ;
iv. based on the information provided by the concerned Registrars to the Center after the filing of the
Complaint, all the disputed domain names have been registered with the indication of the same phone
number;
v. the close similarity amongst the disputed domain names, incorporating the trademark VALENTINO in
its entirety with the addition of the terms referred to online sale (“online”, “store” and “outlet”), as better
detailed infra. ...
2024-09-02 - Case Details
As to the use of the disputed domain name to send misleading
email communications from e-mail address based on the said disputed domain name, such use is also in
bad faith. See section 3.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0: “[p]anels have held that the use of a domain name for
purposes other than to host a website may constitute bad faith. ...
2024-12-26 - Case Details
The Parties
The Complainant is TMK A/S of Holstebro, Denmark, represented by Focus Advokater P/S, Denmark.
The Respondent is woosan of Daegu, Republic of Korea; James Motors of Tonga.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Tucows Inc. ...
2013-01-25 - Case Details
Optima di Federico Papi,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0645; Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847; and The Marigny Corporation v. ...
2013-01-17 - Case Details
Roberto Bianchi
Experto Único
Fecha: 2 de enero de 2013
1 Traducción no oficial del Experto.
2 Traducción no oficial del Experto.
3 Traducción no oficial del Experto.
4 Ver nota titulada “Pagos móviles desde el año que viene” de Hipólito Delgado, publicada el 13 de noviembre de 2009 en el sitio Web “www.hd.com.do/?p=3191”, listado en la búsqueda Google para “tpago”, visitado por el Experto el 2 de enero de 2013.
5 Traducción no oficial del Experto.
6 Traducción no oficial del Experto....
2013-01-16 - Case Details
Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, “[a]ny of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate [Respondent's] rights or legitimate interests to the Domain Names for purposes of [p]aragraph 4(a)(ii):
(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.”
...
2012-01-18 - Case Details
Richi Industry S. r. l.,
WIPO Case No. D2001-1206; Utensilerie Associate S. p. A. v. C & M,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0159; Shaw Industries Group Inc., Columbia Insurance Company v. Wan-Fu China, Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2012-01-13 - Case Details
This is simply not a proper interpretation or application of Policy’s paragraph 4(c)(ii). See Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847.
In the opinion of the Panel Respondent has not shown that he has rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. ...
2012-02-23 - Case Details
D2006-0237; Sound Unseen, Ltd.; Apple Bottoms, LLC; and Cornell Haynes p/k/a “Nelly” v. Patrick Vanderhorst,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0636; True Blue Productions, Inc. v. Chris Hoffman,
WIPO Case No. ...
2011-12-21 - 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”. ...
2011-03-24 - Case Details
Zeynel Demirtas,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0768 (“the [p]anel also concurs with the finding of previous WIPO panels that the use of a famous mark in its entirety with a geographical term in a domain name creates a domain name which is confusingly similar to a famous mark)”. ...
2011-04-28 - Case Details
This Panel notes that in Kirchhof I the panelist stated: “Although ‘indigo’ has an ordinary dictionary meaning, this word is not widely used in commerce, and the [p]anel finds that it is a distinctive part of the [c]omplainant’s HOTEL INDIGO trade marks. Accordingly, the disputed domain names commencing with ‘indigo’ and coupled with a geographic or generic term, are confusingly similar to the [c]omplainant’s trade marks.” ...
2011-01-18 - Case Details
The Complainants makes no submission that the present Panel proceeding should therefore be deferred until the conclusion of the Scottish cases, and this is specifically confirmed in the Complainants’ Supplemental Filing (p 8). In its Response, however, the Respondents specifically request that the present proceeding should be either suspended or terminated, pending the outcome of the Scottish proceedings (Response, paragraph [1]). ...
2011-01-11 - Case Details
The Respondent claims that the use of the disputed domain name is for legitimate reasons, namely as a “political protest site against what I feel is the ruination of American politics” (Annex 18) and was used as such prior to “any notice [to the Respondent] of the dispute” (Response, p. 6).
However, the Complainants submitted evidence demonstrating that the website associated with the disputed domain name was “parked” by the host “GoDaddy” and provided several sponsored links to commercial websites of competitors of the Complainants in the field of transport and shipping services (Annexes 14 and 15). ...
2010-03-16 - Case Details
The Respondent claims that the use of the disputed domain name is for legitimate reasons, namely as a “political protest site against what I feel is the ruination of American politics” (Annex 18) and was used as such prior to “any notice [to the Respondent] of the dispute” (Response, p. 6).
However, the Complainants submitted evidence demonstrating that the website associated with the disputed domain name was “parked” by the host “GoDaddy” and provided several sponsored links to commercial websites of competitors of the Complainants in the field of transport and shipping services (Annexes 14 and 15). ...
2010-03-10 - Case Details
D2001-0784; Experian Information Solutions, Inc. v. B P B Prumerica Travel (a/k/a SFXB a/k/a H. Bousquet a/k/a Brian Evans),
WIPO Case No. D2002-0367; Société des Produits Nestlé SA v. ...
2010-06-09 - Case Details