Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 4, 2012.
The Center appointed William P. Knight as the sole panelist in this matter on December 11, 2012. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. ...Decision
In the light of the findings in paragraph 6 above, the Panel accordingly determines in accordance with paragraph 15 of the Rules that the Domain Name be transferred to the Complainants.
William P. Knight
Sole Panelist
Dated: December 14, 2012...
2013-01-04 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 2, 2012.
The Center appointed William P. Knight as the sole panelist in this matter on November 12, 2012. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. ...Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.
William P. Knight
Sole Panelist
Dated: November 14, 2012...
2012-11-29 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 2, 2012.
The Center appointed William P. Knight as the sole panelist in this matter on November 12, 2012. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. ...Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.
William P. Knight
Sole Panelist
Dated: November 14, 2012...
2012-11-29 - Case Details
On April 4, 2000, the WIPO Center appointed Andrew P. Bridges of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati as the Panelist in this matter.
On April 4, 2000, seven days after the deadline and on the same day that the Panel was appointed, the WIPO Center received two informal e-mail messages from Respondent’s administrative contact criticizing Complainant’s counsel and imposing conditions upon a transfer of the Domain Names. ...Accordingly, pursuant to paragraph 4(i) of the Policy, the Panel now ORDERS that the registration of the Domain Names be transferred to Complainant.
Andrew P. Bridges
Presiding Panelist
Dated: April 21, 2000...
2000-04-25 - Case Details
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s registered trademark CSPB, with the exception of an hyphen added between the letters “s” and “p”. As Complainant has evidenced, “CSPB” is an abbreviation of “CREDIT SUISSE PRIVATE BANKING”, also a registered trademark of Complainant.
In the view of the Panel, the addition of an hyphen between the letters “s” and “p” in an otherwise identical combination of letters, is not sufficient to avoid the risk of confusion with Complainant’s trademark CSPB. ...
2005-06-23 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration
and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE
PANEL DECISION
Eroski S. Coop v. Sergei P
Case No. D2006-0102
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Eroski S. Coop, Elorrio, Spain, represented by Ander Bikandi, Elorrio, Spain.
The Respondent is Sergei P, Minsk, Belarus.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with eNom.
3. ...
2006-04-14 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 30, 2008.
The Center appointed William P. Knight as the sole panelist in this matter on June 12, 2008. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. ...Accordingly, the Panel orders in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules that the Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.
William P. Knight
Sole Panelist
Dated: June 26, 2008...
2008-07-09 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 1, 2007.
The Center appointed Thomas P. Pinansky as the sole panelist in this matter on November 8, 2007. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. ...Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Thomas P. Pinansky
Sole Panelist
Dated: November 22, 2007...
2007-12-05 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 7, 2007.
The Center appointed Thomas P. Pinansky as the sole panelist in this matter on December 21, 2007. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. ...Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Thomas P. Pinansky
Sole Panelist
Dated: January 25, 2008...
2008-01-29 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 15, 2008.
The Center appointed P-E H Petter Rindforth as the sole panelist in this matter on January 22, 2008. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. ...Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name, be transferred to the Complainant.
P-E H Petter Rindforth
Sole Panelist
Dated: February 5, 2008...
2008-02-18 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 30, 2007.
The Center appointed Thomas P. Pinansky as the sole panelist in this matter on May 14, 2007. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. ...Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name, , be transferred to the Complainant.
Thomas P. Pinansky
Sole Panelist
Dated: June 1, 2007...
2007-06-15 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 19, 2007.
The Center appointed William P. Knight as the sole
panelist in this matter on April 30, 2007. The Panel finds that it was properly
constituted. ...Accordingly, the Panel orders in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules that the Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.
William P. Knight
Sole Panelist
Dated: May 10, 2007...
2007-05-16 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. P Martin
Case No. D2009-0323
1. The Parties
The Complainant is F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG of Basel, Switzerland, represented internally.
The Respondent is P. Martin of New Delhi, India.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameSecure L.L.C.
3. ...
2009-05-26 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 20, 2007.
The Center appointed Mr. P-E H Petter Rindforth as the sole panelist in this matter on March 28, 2007. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. ...Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name, be transferred to the Complainant.
P-E H Petter Rindforth
Sole Panelist
Dated: April 11, 2007...
2007-04-30 - Case Details
The Response was filed with the Center on July 8, 2006.
The Center appointed Thomas P. Pinansky, William R. Towns and Arif Hyder Ali as panelists in this matter on August 30, 2006. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. ...Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied.
Thomas P. Pinansky
Presiding Panelist
William R. Towns
Panelist
Arif Hyder Ali
Panelist
Dated: October 26, 2006...
2006-11-01 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 20, 2006.
The Center appointed Mr. P-E H Petter Rindforth as the sole panelist in this matter on November 1, 2006. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. ...Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name, be transferred to the Complainant, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG.
P-E H Petter Rindforth
Sole Panelist
Dated: December 11, 2006...
2006-12-21 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on October 30, 2009.
The Center appointed Thomas P. Pinansky as the sole panelist in this matter on November 3, 2009. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. ...Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Thomas P. Pinansky
Sole Panelist
Dated: November 17, 2009...
2009-11-25 - 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 notes section 3.1.4 of WIPO Overview 3.0 where: “[p]anels have consistently found that the mere
registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising
typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a famous or, widely-known trademark by an
unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith”.
...Further, as set out in WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.6: “[p]anels additionally view the provision of false
contact information…as an indication of bad faith”. ...
2023-10-31 - 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