D2017-1268; 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. ...
2018-04-23 - Case Details
Section 4.6 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0") states inter alia "Unsolicited supplemental filings are generally discouraged, unless specifically requested by the panel…. [P]anels have repeatedly affirmed that the party submitting or requesting to submit an unsolicited supplemental filing should clearly show its relevance to the case and why it was unable to provide the information contained therein in its complaint or response. ...
2018-04-06 - Case Details
The Respondent clearly selected the Domain Name with the intention of taking advantage of the Complainant's reputation by registering a domain name fully containing the Complainant’s trade name with the intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain (Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847).
The failure of the Domain Name to display any content and, instead, to display an error message such as the one mentioned above is sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of the absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name on the part of the Respondent (Boehringer lngelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG v. ...
2019-06-12 - 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.”
...
2019-12-05 - Case Details
In considering this delay of 14 years in challenging the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name, the Panel is of the same view as UDRP decisions mentioned in section 4.17 of WIPO Overview 3.0 that “[p]anels have widely recognized that mere delay between the registration of a domain name and the filing of a complaint neither bars a complainant from filing such case, nor from potentially prevailing on the merits”. ...
2020-01-14 - Case Details
[paragraph] 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as allowed under Policy, [paragraph] 4(c)(iii).”
Section 2.9 of WIPO Overview 3.0 provides:
“[P]anels have found that the use of a domain name to host a parked page comprising PPC links does not represent a bona fide offering where such links compete with or capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the complainant’s mark or otherwise mislead Internet users.” ...
2020-02-06 - Case Details
In considering this delay of 13 to 15 years in challenging the Respondent’s registrations of the Disputed Domain Names, the Panel is of the same views as UDRP decisions mentioned in section 4.17 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 that “[p]anels have widely recognized that mere delay between the registration of a domain name and the filing of a complaint neither bars a complainant from filing such case, nor from potentially prevailing on the merits”. ...
2019-11-21 - 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. ...
2019-09-11 - Case Details
The Parties
Complainant is Lacamas Shores Homeowners Association of Camas, Washington, United States of America (“United States”), represented pro se by Mark P. Guthrie, United States, a member of the Lacamas Shores Homeowners Association Board.
Respondent is Catherine Arnold of Camas, Washington, United States, appearing pro se.
2. ...
2017-07-04 - Case Details
The Panel finds that the use of "n" in the place of "and" or "&" is common in modern English and does not eliminate the confusing similarity. See, F. Hoffmann‑La Roche 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. ...
2017-06-29 - Case Details
Las Partes
La Demandante es Luis Alba Gallo con domicilio en Madrid, España, representada por Jesús P. López, España (en adelante, la “Demandante”).
La Demandada es Inside Financial Services S.L. con domicilio en Madrid, España, representada por el mismo (en adelante, la “Demandada”).
2. ...
2014-08-28 - Case Details
Such use of the disputed domain name could not be said to be bona fide.
In the oft-quoted case of 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 cannot constitute a 'bona fide' offering of goods or services. ...
2014-06-20 - Case Details
No obstante, si bien la marca registrada de la Reclamante PERÚ (y logotipo) se encuentra conformada además por una figura irregular la cual representa a la letra inicial “P”, no resulta suficiente para poder diferenciar la marca registrada del nombre de dominio en disputa. ...
2014-02-11 - Case Details
This Panel shares the views expressed in Gordon Sumner, p/k/a Sting v. Michael Urvan,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0596, that unsolicited submissions will be considered only in exceptional circumstances, and only when the party filing the unsolicited submission explains the exceptional circumstances and why the material could not have been submitted with the Complaint.
...
2015-07-15 - Case Details
Complainant cites as an example the cases of Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847 or Beyoncé Knowles v. Sonny Ahuja,
WIPO Case No. ...
2015-02-26 - Case Details
The Parties
The Complainant is Società Reale Mutua di Assicurazioni of Torino, Italy, represented by R&P Legal, Italy.
The Respondent is Andrew Reale, The Reale Group of Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America, represented by Steven Rinehart, United States of America (“US”).
2. ...
2015-02-23 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant points out that it was founded by P. Luckey, self-described virtual reality enthusiast and “hardware geek.” On April 14, 2012, Luckey first introduced his idea of creating an affordable virtual reality head-mounted display that he named the “Oculus Rift” on the website at “www.oculusvr.com.” ...
2017-02-16 - Case Details
Bill Zag and NWLAWS.ORG (supra), after saying "The Policy was not intended to permit a party who elects to register as a trademark or service mark a common word to bar all others from using the common word in combination with other common words ...", went on to say "... unless it is clear that the use involved is seeking to capitalize on the goodwill created by the mark holder".
The three-member panel in Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com",
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847, said: "We find instead that name [Madonna] was selected and used by Respondent with the intent to attract for commercial gain Internet users to Respondent's web site by trading on the fame of Complainant's mark. ...
2016-07-18 - Case Details
o) The Respondent maintains that seeking a fair price for the Disputed Domain Name does not amount to bad faith.
(p) The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a parking page operated by Sedo.com, which displays pay-per-click advertising links. ...
2015-11-25 - Case Details
The specific cumulative circumstances in this case are indicative of bad faith on the part of the Respondent in its registration and/or use of the Domain Name (see The Coca-Cola Company v. P. Engbers,
WIPO Case No. DNL2012-0037; and Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,
WIPO Case No. ...
2016-03-23 - Case Details