The Complainant contends that the minor alteration to its mark in the Disputed
Domain Name, adding an additional “p”, does not dispel the confusing similarity to the Complainant’s mark.
The Complainant contends the Respondent has not demonstrated any rights or legitimate interests in the
Disputed Domain Name. ...The Disputed Domain Name is nearly identical to
the Complainant’s mark, only adding a second “p.” Minor, single-letter alterations do not prevent a finding of
confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant’s mark. ...
2023-07-05 - 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”. The WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition
(“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.11.2, 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.
...
2023-05-23 - 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.
...
2024-01-12 - 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 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
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 “[t]he [p]anel shall ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition”. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.11.2, 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.
...
2020-12-23 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Parties on August 8, 2018, that it would proceed to appoint the panelist in this proceeding.
The Center appointed Thomas P. Pinansky as the sole panelist in this matter on August 24, 2018. 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 disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Thomas P. Pinansky
Sole Panelist
Date: September 10, 2018...
2018-09-20 - Case Details
The Panel grants the request.
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 as follows:
“Where a complaint is filed against multiple respondents, panels look at whether (i) the domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control, and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties. ...
2018-01-08 - Case Details
ROWE PRICE mark since the only differences between it and the Domain Name are the substitution of an “o” for the letter “p”, the absence of a “.” in the Domain Name, and the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) suffix “.com”. ...The removal of the symbol “.” and the substitution of an “o” for “p” in the Domain Name do not in any way prevent a finding of confusing similarity.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2019-06-24 - Case Details
The two Respondents and disputed domain names are consolidated into this one 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.
...
2020-03-23 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Parties that it would proceed to Panel Appointment.
The Center appointed William P. Knight as the sole panelist in this matter on December 11, 2017. 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 disputed domain name be transferred to the second Complainant, Hugo Boss AG.
William P. Knight
Sole Panelist
Date: December 13, 2017...
2018-01-10 - Case Details
The Response was filed with the Center on January 27, 2015.
The Center appointed Panelists William P. Knight, Warwick A. Rothnie and John Swinson as panelists in this matter on February 26, 2015. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. ...Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied.
Warwick A. Rothnie
Presiding Panelist
William P. Knight
Panelist
John Swinson
Panelist
Date: March 9, 2015...
2015-03-12 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 8, 2014.
The Center appointed William P. Knight as the sole panelist in this matter on April 17, 2014. 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
Date: May 5, 2014...
2014-05-13 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 1, 2015.
The Center appointed William P. Knight as the sole panelist in this matter on May 8, 2015. 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 Disputed Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.
William P. Knight
Sole Panelist
Date: May 12, 2015...
2015-05-22 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on February 10, 2016.
The Center appointed William P. Knight as the sole panelist in this matter on February 16, 2016. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. ...Decision
For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied.
William P. Knight
Sole Panelist
Date: March 7, 2016...
2016-03-17 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration
and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE
PANEL DECISION
Australian
Broadcasting Corporation v. P & C Hewitt
Case No.
D2001-0457
1.The Parties
The Complainant in this
proceeding is the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, of 700 Harris Street,
Ultimo, New South Wales, Australia.
The Respondents in this
proceeding are P and C Hewitt of 4f Igarashi Building, 6–1–28 Shimo Meguro,
Tokyo, Japan.
2.The Domain Names
and Registrar
This dispute concerns the
two domain names:
("Domain Names")
The registrar with whom
the Domain Names are registered is:
Network Solutions Inc,
Herndon, VA 20170, United States of America.
...
2001-07-09 - Case Details
On May 25, 2001, in view of the Complainant’s designation of a single panelist the Center invited Mr. P-E Petter Rindforth to serve as a panelist.
Having received Mr. Rindforth’s Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, the Center, on May 29, 2001, transmitted to the parties a Notification of Appointment of Administrative Panel and Projected Decision Date, in which Mr. ...Therefore, pursuant to paragraphs 4 (i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules,
the Panel orders that the Domain Name be transferred to the
Complainant SINTEF - Stiftelsen for industriell og teknisk forskning ved Norges
tekniske høgskole.
P-E Petter Rindforth
Sole Panelist
Dated: June 9, 2001...
2001-06-21 - Case Details
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).
As pointed out by the Complainants and absent evidence to the contrary, the
Complainants have not granted any license or otherwise permitted the Respondent
to use the Complainants' trade marks or to apply for any domain name incorporating
said trade marks; moreover, the Respondent does not seem to be the owner of
any registered trademark or common law right containing the term "LUCIFERO";
neither does it seem to be commonly know under the domain name in dispute.
...
2001-07-27 - Case Details
This was announced on March 6, 2000 , the day before Respondent registered the two disputed domain names (Complaint, p.14, Exhibit K). The Panel believes this fact situation is almost identical to that in A. P. Moller v. ...
2000-12-12 - Case Details