WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
O2 Worldwide Limited v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / Rodrigo P Braga, Ypse IT Solutions
Case No. D2019-0124
1. The Parties
The Complainant is O2 Worldwide Limited of London, the United Kingdom, represented by Stobbs IP Limited, the United Kingdom.
...The WhoIs information related to the Disputed Domain Name indicates that the Respondent is Rodrigo P Braga, Ypse IT Solutions. The Respondent’s use and registration of the Disputed Domain Name was not authorized by the Complainant. ...
2019-04-16 - Case Details
The question is: are the disputed domain name and the trademark EBAY confusingly similar? The letters “p” and “l” are the first two letters of the disputed domain name. The Complainant has not suggested they have any particular meaning. ...“plebay” can be read as “pleb-ay”, “pl-ebay”, “ple-bay” or, even, “p-lebay”. This means the disputed domain name could be used in a way that is not confusingly similar to the Complainants’ registered trademarks. ...
2014-12-01 - Case Details
The contested Domain Name “lepigen.com”
is almost identical to the Complainant’s trademark LETIGEN, except of
the letter “T” in the fantasy designation LETIGEN being changed
to the letter “P”. Nevertheless, 6 out of 7 letters of the designation
are identical and the Domain Name and the trademark are also phonetically similar
to a degree that they create an almost identical impression. The Panel, therefore,
finds that replacing the consonant “t” with the consonant “p”
is not adequate to sufficiently distinguish both terms but constitutes a case
of “typosquatting” (AltaVista Company v. ...
2006-09-08 - Case Details
In this Panel's assessment, the present case needs to be distinguished from previous - though not binding - cases decided under the UDRP, such as Aspen Holdings Inc. v. Christian P. Vandendorpe,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1160, , and Aspen Holdings Inc. v. Rick Natsch, Potrero Media Corporation,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0776, .
Aspen Holdings Inc. v. Christian P. Vandendorpe,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1160, , dealt with an identical second level domain name and the same Complainant, and resulted in the transfer of the domain name . ...
2010-06-11 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Aspen Holdings Inc. v. Christian P. Vandendorpe
Case No. D2009-1160
1. The Parties
1.1 The Complainant is Aspen Holdings Inc. of Omaha, Nebraska, United States of America, represented by Hinckley, Allen & Snyder, LLP of United States.
1.2 The Respondent is Christian P. ...He also appears to have previously been involved in domain name proceedings, having been the respondent in Sociedad Rectora de la Bolsa de Valores de Bilbao, S.A. v. Christian P. Vandendorpe,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0093. That case related to the domain name , and the panel held that this was an abusive registration.
4.6 The Domain Name has (at least recently) been used to display web pages that bear all the hallmarks of having been generated by a domain name “parking” and “pay-per-click” service. ...
2009-11-02 - Case Details
Domain Name
Comparison of the EXPRESS SCRIPTS Trademark with the disputed Domain Names
Exrpess-scripts.com
Transposition of “p” and “r” in “express”
Expess-scripts.com
Omission of one “r” in “express”
Express-scipts.com
Omission of one “r” in “scripts”
Esxpress-scripts.com
Addition of one “s” to “express”
Express-cripts.com
Omission of one “s” in “scripts”
Expresssripts.com
Omission of one “c” in “scripts”
Espress-script.com
Misspelling of “express” as “espress” and omission of one “s” in “scripts”
Express-scritps.com
Transposition of “p” and “t” in “scripts”
Express-sript.com
Omission of one “c” and one “s” in “scripts”
Express-scrpts.com
Omission of one “i” in “scripts”
Rxpress-scripts.com
Substitution of “r” for “e” in “express”
Exprescriptions.com
Use of “scriptions” instead of “scripts”
Express-sripts.com
Omission of one “c” in “scripts”
Epxress-scripts.com
Transposition of “p” and “x” in “express”
With the exceptions of the domain name ,
which is discussed below, each of the domain names listed above is virtually
identical as to sight, sound, and meaning when compared to Complainant’s
trade mark. ...
2006-05-29 - Case Details
- The eINFO website, which makes it clear that it "develops attractive domain names and then partners with or licenses the use of these domain names to other entities to use as an internet retail presence" (Complaint, p 8). More specifically, the eINFO website (Complaint, Exhibit L) states that eINFO has some "3,000 domain names registered in total. 2000 make up DirectoryAustralia.com and an additional 1000 generic domain names will be developed as eCommerce sites by way of joint ventures and strategic partnership to bolt on to the DirectoryAustralia.com framework." … The Complainant (Complaint, p 8) states that the DirectoryAustralia.com website explains this "business model" further, namely that its "concept" was "to structure the Internet using 2000 domain names as separate Internet directories (portals). ...An email message dated November 15, 2000 from Tony Paterson of eINFO (Complaint, Exhibit P) provides further background on the business activities of the Respondent, but strenuously maintains that the latter has the highest "Ethical Standards" and does not engage in cybersquatting. ...
2001-04-06 - Case Details
D2000-489 and D2000-0490; and also Club Méditerranée v. Yosi Hasidim, WIPO Case D2000-1350, para. 6 A., p. 4).
Like in WIPO Case D2000-1350 cited above, the Sole Panelist considers here that "clubmediterranee.com" is also confusingly similar to the "CLUB MED" mark since people in the public are likely to associate it with the trademark (see also WIPO Case D2000-1427 Club Méditerranée v. ...This entitles the Administrative Panel to draw any such inferences from such default as it considers appropriate pursuant to Paragraph 14 (b) of the Rules (see e.g. WIPO Cases Nos. D2000-0009, p. 6 or D2000-0867, p. 6; see also WIPO Case D2000-1350 cited).
It is the Sole Panelist’s finding that the Complainant has established that the trademarks "CLUB MEDITERRANEE" and "CLUB MED" have been famous in Europe and the United States for a significant period of time. ...
2001-02-06 - Case Details
Some of the Complainant's group companies' names start with BIC or its Japanese counterpart, such as Bic P kan, Bic Sport, Bic Contact, Bic Toys, Bic Staff, Bic Pasoconland and Bicbic.com. The term BIC or its Japanese counterpart is used as the title of its magazine, i.e., "Bic Press" as well.
4.6. ...The web
site at is mainly an online shopping site for the Complainant
as well as for its group company Bic P kan, which is specialized in the sale
of computer related products. The web site at offers various
information relating to the Bic P kan. ...
2002-11-13 - Case Details
D2000-0867); MPL Communications Limited v. Denny Hammerton (NAF95633); Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com"(D2000-0847); Nik Carter v. The Afternoon Fiasco (D2000-0658); Pierre van Hooijdonk v. ...Mark Allan Online Entertainment (AF-0214).
The "Sting" case, Gordon Sumner, p/k/a Sting v. Micheal Urvan (D2000-0596), distinguished between personal names that have become trademarks (to which the Policy applies) and personality rights (to which the Policy was not intended to apply).
...
2000-12-22 - Case Details
Respondents are:
24game, Kyrkogatan 14, Vetlanda, se 574 32, SE ("24game") (Complaint, Paragraph 6, p. 2)
2. Domain Names and Registrar
The domain name in issue, the registrant, the date of registration, and status of the domain name according to Network Solutions, Inc. are:
24game.com, 24game, November 26, 1997, Hold
Network Solutions, Inc. ...See screen print from Network Solutions’ database at Attachment P. See also Declaration of Denise I. Mroz at Attachment N.
(xi) On April 14, 2000, Complainant attempted to contact Respondent via express mail. ...
2000-06-29 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com"
Case No. D2000-0847
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Madonna Ciccone, an individual professionally known as Madonna.
...D2000-0210 (WIPO May 29, 2000); Helen Folsade Adu p/k/a Sade v. Quantum Computer Services Inc., Case No. D2000-0794 (WIPO September 26, 2000).
There is also evidence in the record which tends to support Complainant’s claim that Respondent’s registration of the domain name prevents Complainant from reflecting her mark in the corresponding .com domain name and that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct. ...
2000-10-16 - Case Details
Apart from the email received on August 21, 2012 from P. Navarro, Respondent did not submit any formal response.
The Center appointed Eduardo Machado as the sole panelist in this matter on September 13, 2012. ...Complainants inform that just hours after the in-person meeting, Respondent agent P. Navarro sent an email informing an alleged “impossibility” to proceed with the transfer of domain names, which would have “additional costs”. ...
2012-11-16 - Case Details
Vineet Singh,
WIPO Case No. D2001-1162, where the [p]anel held that ‘… any use of the name Harrods in conjunction with a description… would suggest a false sense of origin…for any associated goods or services’. ...Brad Shaw,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0411, where the [p]anel held that ‘The [d]omain [n]ame consists of the word HARRODS plus a hyphen and the generic term ’poker’. ...
2010-09-28 - Case Details
It said that the document provided to the Panel as Exhibit P as evidence of prior or actual use of the Trillian mark on goods for sale and export was fabricated.
...In the Respondent’s further Supplemental Filing of July 31, 2013 in response to the Complainant’s Supplemental Filing of July 24, 2013 (asserting that a shipping document exhibited as Exhibit P to the Respondent’s Supplemental Filing of July 10, 2013 was a false document), the Respondent re-asserted that the shipping information in Exhibit P was indeed true, and exhibited certain other documents purporting to establish the truth of the disputed document.
...
2013-10-10 - Case Details
Consolidation is proper, so the Complainant’s request for consolidation is granted.
Paragraph 10(e) of the Rules states that a “[p]anel shall decide a request by a Party to consolidate multiple domain name disputes in accordance with the Policy and these Rules”. Paragraph 10(c) of the Rules provides, in relevant part, that “the [p]anel shall ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition”. Section 4.11.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) summarizes the consensus view of UDRP panels on the consolidation of multiple respondents and provides that where a complaint is filed against multiple respondents, panels consider whether the domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control, and whether the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties.
...
2022-03-07 - Case Details
In addition to
that, the Complainant operates its official website under the domain name , and is the
owner of the following trademark registrations:
- Swiss trademark registration No. 577391 for PESTALOZZI ATTORNEYS AT LAW, registered on October
1, 2008, in classes 16, 35, 36, 41 and 45;
- Swiss trademark registration No. P-567101 for PESTALOZZI ATTORNEYS AT LAW, registered on January
23, 2008, in classes 16, 35, 36, 41 and 45; and
- Swiss trademark registration No. P-567103 for PESTALOZZI ATTORNEYS AT LAW, registered on January
23, 2008, in classes 16, 35, 36, 41 and 45.
...
2022-07-05 - Case Details
The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is identical to
the Complainant’s PIXABAY trademark except that the letter “p” is replaced with an “o.” The Complainant
contends that this is a case of typosquatting since these letters are adjacent on a QWERTY keyboard, and
as such, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
...As for the disputed domain name, it is composed of the exact same letters as the Complainant’s mark,
except that the letter “p” is replaced by the letter “o” which happens to be an adjacent letter on the keyboard.
WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”),
section 1.9, establishes that “[a] domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional
misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for
purposes of the first element”. ...
2022-11-08 - Case Details
The Panel finds that consolidation is proper in this case. Paragraph 10(e) of the Rules states that a “[p]anel shall decide a request by a Party to consolidate multiple domain name disputes in accordance with the Policy and these Rules”. Paragraph 10(c) of the Rules provides, in relevant part, that “the [p]anel shall ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition”. Section 4.11.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) summarizes the consensus view of UDRP panels on the consolidation of multiple respondents and provides that where a complaint is filed against multiple respondents, panels consider whether the domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control, and whether the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties.
...
2021-02-22 - Case Details
Complainant
According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademark IPSOS, as it consists of the same word “ipsos” written with two letters “p”, and is therefore a
misspelling and typosquatting of the Complainant’s mark.
The Complainant further maintains that the Respondent lack rights or legitimate interests in the disputed
domain name as the Respondent has no registered rights consisting of, or including the term “ippsos”, and
the Complainant has never authorized the registration of the disputed domain name.
...The disputed domain name is a misspelling of the Complainant’s
trademark as it consists of the word “ipsos” written with two letters “p”. According to Section 1.9 of the WIPO
Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), “[a]
domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered
by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element”.
...
2023-04-03 - Case Details