Because the list of circumstances that are evidence of bad faith provided in paragraph 4(b) is not intended to be exclusive, the Panel has reviewed each of Complainant’s additional allegations of Respondent’s bad faith.
First, Complainant states that “[p]rima facie evidence of bad faith can be seen in the fact that the Respondent only commenced registration of the Disputed Domain Name when he realized that Nominet had ordered the transfer of to the Complainant”. ...
2006-12-27 - Case Details
D2000-1840 (for offering under paragraph 4(c)(i) to be considered bona fide, domain name use must be in good faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii)). See also Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847; Trade Me Limited v. Vertical Axis Inc.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2009-10-07 - Case Details
However, at least some of the domain names registered to Respondent include trademarks of third parties, such as and ) (Complaint, Annexes P & R).
Ten domain name registrations listed to Nancy Williams relate to industrial products, including , , , , , , , , and . ...
2001-02-08 - Case Details
IRG Coins and Ink Source, Inc., WIPO
Case No. D2000-0090; Stralfors AB v. P D S AB, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0112; InfoSpace.com, Inc. v. Ofer, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0075.
To quote a prior Panel decision, "[B]ecause Respondent is contributing no value-added
to the Internet -- it is merely attempting to exploit a general rule of registration
-- the broad community of Internet users will be better served by transferring
the domain name to a party with a legitimate use for it." ...
2001-06-29 - Case Details
o) In the other two ICANN proceedings in which Respondent was a party, In re Craftwork.com and In re Daf.com, each three-person panel unanimously found in favor of Respondent, determining that its Internet business activities, including its branding services which involved the registration of multiple domain names for later resale, was a legitimate business activity.
(p) The Complainant has not shown either registration or use of and Travelplanet.com in bad faith by Respondent.
...
2001-05-18 - Case Details
Prior panels have not condoned such efforts. In Madonna Ciccone p/k/a Madonna v. Parisi, WIPO Case No. D2000-0847, the respondent claimed it made legitimate, noncommercial use of the domain name "madonna.com" by offering to transfer the name to Madonna Hospital in Lincoln, Nebraska. ...
2001-04-06 - Case Details
IRG Coins and Ink Source, Inc., WIPO
Case No. D2000-0090; Stralfors AB v. P D S AB, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0112; InfoSpace.com, Inc. v. Ofer, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0075.
To quote a prior Panel decision, "[B]ecause Respondent is contributing no value-added to the Internet -- it is merely attempting to exploit a general rule of registration -- the broad community of Internet users will be better served by transferring the domain name to a party with a legitimate use for it." ...
2001-09-18 - Case Details
In respect of the first limb, the point of time as from which the reasonableness of delay is determined is, prima facie, the time at which the plaintiff came to know of the facts that had given rise to the ground of equitable intervention in question: Stafford v Stafford (1857) 44 ER 697 at p.701. In respect of the second limb, it is necessary that the Defendant be prejudiced by the delay.
...
2002-11-08 - Case Details
Copies of the e-mails exchanged are attached as Annex O and P.
On September 14, 2001, the Complainant filed an ICANN dispute resolution complaint with eResolution to seek the transfer of the domain name . ...
2002-04-11 - Case Details
This argument has also been accepted by even the US Courts (Playboy Enterprises vs. Chuckleberry Publishing Inc. (1996) 39 U. S. P. Q. 2d 1746 (District Court of the Southern District of New York)).
(2) Whether a particular name is identical or confusingly similar as to influence the public/customers is a question of fact that could only be answered by taking into account the conditions and circumstances of a given market and the characteristics of the given class of public/customers. ...
2003-07-24 - Case Details
被告对域名不拥有权利与合法利益
投诉人认为被投诉人注册和使用域名侵犯了投诉人就“东芝”商标享有的权利，利用了投诉人的商誉进行交易，窃取了互联网上旨在寻找投诉人的用户，所以被投诉人注册和使用域名不构成也无法构成政策第4条(c)项(i)目
定义之真正的提供
商品或服务之行为。案例依据Madonna
Ciccone,
p/k/a Madonna
v. Dan Parisi
and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO
D2000-847（裁决结果是：“故意利用他人声誉的做
法不能构成‘真正的’提供商品与服务之行为。...
2003-08-21 - Case Details
被告对域名不拥有权利与合法利益
投诉人认为被投诉人注册和使用域名侵犯了投诉人就“东芝”商标享有的权利，
利用了投诉人的商誉进行交易，窃取了互联网上旨在寻找投诉人的用户，所以被
投诉人注册和使用域名不构成也无法构成政策第4条(c)项(i)目 定义之真正的提供
商品或服务之行为。案例依据Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and
“Madonna.com”, WIPO D2000-847（裁决结果是：“故意利用他人声誉的做
法不能构成‘真正的’提供商品与服务之行为。...
2003-08-21 - Case Details
Factual Background
According to the Complaint at p 5, the Complainant is a Canadian corporation, that has been involved (both itself and through its predecessors) in technology development for more than 25 years, principally in relation to the processing of plant fibre. ...
2003-09-17 - Case Details
The Complainant
submitted that "such enclosures should not be considered, being clear that
the language of the proceedings is English" (Supplement to the Complaint,
p.1).
The Complainant’s Exhibits
3-6 are written in Italian and are not accompanied by an English translation.
...
2001-07-04 - Case Details
It has been an authorized
retail distributor of the Complainant’s products since 1989.
4.3 According to the WHOIS database of Network Solutions, the Respondent is
listed as the Registrant of the each of the disputed domain names, Stephen P.
Arnold of Only Kids is listed as the administrative and billing contact, and
Hostmaster, WebnetOnline, is listed as the technical contact. ...
2001-10-05 - Case Details
The Panel concurs with such inferences, the drawing of which precludes a finding that any offering of services by the Respondents on the Website was bona fide (see Madonna Ciccone p/k/a Madonna v Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847; and Viacom International, Inc., Paramount Pictures Corporation, and Blockbuster Inc. v TVdot.net, Inc. f/k/a Affinity Multimedia,
WIPO Case No. ...
2011-12-02 - Case Details
Prima facie, it appears that the Respondent is not misleadingly directing Internet users to a page composed of advertisements and links in connection with the Complainant or the same industry sector as the Complainant’s trademarks and thereby seeking some illegitimate commercial gain (e.g.,: Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847 which held that “use which intentionally trades on the fame of another cannot constitute a ‘bona fide’ offering of goods or services”). ...
2012-05-31 - Case Details
Nor is this the sort of case where it can be said that the domain name has been registered to trade off “the reputation of the complainant’s mark by attracting users to the respondent’s web site, or diverting users to the sites of the complainant’s competitors.” (Lindsay, International Domain Name Law, at p 279). On the other hand, there is no evidence that the disputed domain name has been used for purposes that are now well established as legitimate, such as for bona fide commercial purposes, bringing the case within paragraph 4(c)(i), or as a fan site or free speech or criticism site, bringing it within paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy.
...
2010-10-01 - Case Details
The Complainant also makes it plain that it 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”.
...
2011-01-11 - Case Details
However, merely establishing a business name and registering a domain name to trade off another’s reputation does not suffice to establish a right or legitimate interest safe harbor for the purpose of the Policy. Madonna Ciccone p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com",
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847 is instructive on this issue. ...
2011-08-04 - Case Details