In relation to the Respondent’s assertion that “kubota” is a generic term, section 2.10.1 of the WIPO
Overview 3.0 indicates that “[p]anels have recognized that merely registering a domain name comprised of a
dictionary word or phrase does not by itself automatically confer rights or legitimate interests on the
respondent; panels have held that mere arguments that a domain name corresponds to a dictionary
term/phrase will not necessarily suffice. ...
2022-12-05 - Case Details
Section 4.6 of the 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. ...
2021-07-27 - Case Details
When considering
whether the filing of trademark application or registration of a trademark evidences the existence of a
legitimate interest, the following circumstances should be taken into account (see Fonbet Corp. v. Gennadiy
P. Pastushenko, WIPO Case DUA2020-0020):
(i) when considering the issue of ‘rights or legitimate interests’ under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the .UA Policy, the
panel may, where appropriate, question the legitimacy of the trademark referred to by the respondent. ...
2024-08-27 - Case Details
The date of the filing of this trademark, which postdates the judicial assignment of the Turkish trademark BONNYFOOD to the Complainant, suggests that the Respondent filed a trademark application in the U.S. for the main purpose to preserve the disputed domain name from possible enforcement of the Complainant’s rights. As found in Madonna Ciccone p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847, “To establish cognizable rights, the overall circumstances should demonstrate that the [trademark] 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.”
...
2015-02-11 - Case Details
The fact that some consumers may now associate the disputed domain name with Respondent does not render Respondent's original registration and use of a confusingly similar disputed domain name into a legitimate use. See, e.g., Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com",
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847; eBay Inc. v. ebayMoving / Izik Apo,
WIPO Case No. ...
2017-12-06 - Case Details
Numerous UDRP decisions have recognized that incorporating a trademark in its entirety can be sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark. 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. ...
2017-07-24 - Case Details
If the respondent fails to disclose specifics, and does not offer a reasonable or plausible explanation for use of a term that is a trademark, it is found to be indicative of lacking of good faith and honest use of the trademark in the disputed domain name.See MadonnaCiccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com",
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847 ().
Merely stating that the respondent has an intention of using the disputed domain name for an intended project without any credible evidence to support the contentions does not show the respondent has made demonstrable preparations to use of the disputed domain name in connection a bona fide offering of goods or services. ...
2017-11-13 - Case Details
Kirareed.net,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0851; and Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847 (“use which intentionally trades on the fame of another can not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services”).
...
2014-10-24 - Case Details
En todos esos casos, los grupos de expertos has afirmado repetidamente que la parte que hace una presentación adicional no solicitada, o que solicita presentarla, debería demostrar claramente su relevancia para el caso y por qué no pudo proporcionar la información allí contenida en su demanda p contestación a la demanda (p.ej., debido a alguna circunstancia “excepcional”)”).1
El Experto considera que la presentación adicional de la Demandante no contiene elementos que no pudieran haber sido incorporados en la Demanda. ...
2018-09-25 - Case Details
Here, the dominant feature of Complainant’s Marks is “mobius.” See, e.g., Cameron Thomaz p/k/a Wiz Khalifa and Wiz Khalifa Trademark, LLC v. Anthony Lynch and Anthony ceo,
WIPO Case No. D2015-0166 (finding domain names containing the word “taylor” but not “gang” confusingly similar to the trademark TAYLOR GANG where “Complainant has alleged that ‘taylor’ is the dominant portion of the TAYLOR GANG trademark, and that Respondent has incorporated this dominant portion of the trademark into the disputed domain names”); La Quinta Worldwide L.L.C. v. ...
2018-09-28 - Case Details
With respect to unsolicited filings, this Panel is of the view 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.
...
2018-11-12 - 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. ...
2020-09-07 - Case Details
Finally, the Respondents cannot rely on their current use of the Complainant’s trade marks and disputed domain names as the basis for becoming known by the disputed domain name. As stated in Madonna Ciccone p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847, “[t]o conclude otherwise would mean that a [r]espondent could rely on intentional infringement to demonstrate a legitimate interest, an interpretation that is obviously contrary to the intent of the Policy”.
...
2011-09-01 - Case Details
To conclude otherwise would mean that a Respondent could rely on intentional infringement to demonstrate a legitimate interest, an interpretation that is obviously contrary to the intent of the Policy." Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847. Here, it is not proved that the Respondent adopted KOC EGITIM KOLEJLERI to specifically target or as a deliberate infringement of Complainant's rights. ...
2011-09-16 - Case Details
To conclude otherwise would mean that a Respondent could rely on intentional infringement to demonstrate a legitimate interest, an interpretation which is obviously contrary to the intent of the Policy.” See Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847; F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Transure Enterprise Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2012-02-06 - Case Details
El Experto observa que los expertos que aplican la UDRP han considerado que una marca compuesta de términos genéricos no pierde por ello carácter distintivo, y por lo tanto puede usarse como marca. Ver p. ej., Colombiahosting S.A.S. c. Diego Alejandro Marin Galvis,
Caso OMPI No. D2012-1857 (“El Experto no considera que para efectos del primer requisito de la Política sean relevantes los argumentos presentados por el Demandado según los cuales el hecho de que la marca base de este procedimiento sea una marca mixta o que los términos que la componen puedan ser considerados genéricos impide la confusión entre el nombre de dominio en disputa y la marca de la Demandante. ...
2014-12-01 - Case Details
En este sentido, por ejemplo, Alberto Bercovitz (en su obra “Introducción a las marcas y otros signos distintivos en el tráfico económico”, Editorial Aranzadi, Colección Monografías Aranzadi, 2002, p. 242) establece: “Por lo que se refiere a la relación entre marcas y nombres comerciales, hay que poner ante todo de manifiesto que su régimen jurídico es sustancialmente el mismo, especialmente después de la promulgación de la Ley de Marcas de 2001. ...
2005-04-18 - Case Details
Nuclear Marshmallows,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 (“[P]aragraph 4(b) expressly recognises that other circumstances can be evidence that a domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith”). ...
2008-03-12 - Case Details
Because I don’t understand all of this, I feel the urge to keep mailing back when you mail me something about a receipt and passing to a panel.Sorry. Panel. FirstCap P. Who is in the Panel? How many men/woman? What do they do for their living? I hope they do not ‘just’ think the word ‘SEX’ is a problem, because all people stand on this earth BECAUSE of sex. ...
2007-12-21 - Case Details
Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition (4th ed. 2005) §31:10, p. 31-35 and cases cited therein, to the effect that in common law, the defense of laches bars the recovery of damages incurred before the filing of a lawsuit; this does not apply to injunctive relief in a trademark action that seeks to avoid future confusion in the marketplace.
2 See Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. ...
2008-11-18 - Case Details