Le Tribunal fédéral a jugé dans le même sens que l’arrêt Audi dans une cause "WIR" reproduite dans la revue SIC ! 2000 p. 611. Le sommaire officieux du considérant 3 b de cet arrêt se lit en partie : "L’utilisation d’une marque étrangère par des tiers est admise lorsque son usage est nécessaire pour décrire l’objet du service offert". ...Un arrêt récent du Tribunal d’appel du canton du Tessin publié in SIC ! 2008 p. 122 applique ces principes à une marque très connue (POLO BY RALPH LAUREN). Celui qui n’est pas un revendeur agréé ne peut éditer des cartes de fidélité avec la marque célèbre en cause, ni placer une enseigne lumineuse contenant cette marque. ...
2011-02-21 - Case Details
Non è necessario provare i fatti noti (DTF 130 III 113 consid. 3.4 p. 121; 117 II 321 consid. 2 p. 323; 109 II 231 consid. 3c/bb p. 234).
E noto che i marchi ASPIRIN e ASPIRINA godono nel mondo di una notorietà particolarmente grande, come lo riconosce d'altronde la Resistente, e di una considerazione positiva nella maggior parte della popolazione.
...
2009-03-30 - Case Details
On April 2, 2024, Respondent replied, stating in part:
“We d id not register the domain to p revent you f rom registering it. We d id not register the domain
to sell i t . […] We have not set up a site that could confuse your clients. We do no t intend to
commerc ial ize the domain; we wil l engage in non-p ro f it ac t iv it ies . ” […]
“We call for agreement and peaceful dispute resolution, but we are p repared f o r any scenario . ”
“Regarding your inquiry about our business with bicycle parts f rom Italy, it concerns cycling training,
training advice, organizing cycling trips, organizing a community with Italian partners, and promoting
the sport. ...
2024-06-26 - Case Details
So far as the WHATSAPP trademark is concerned,
omission of the second letter “p” and substitution of the letter “k”, does not prevent a finding of confusing
similarity with the Domain Name, i.e. it contains, and its dominant element is, the WHATSAPP trademark.
...The substitution of the letter “k” for the second letter “p” (which would have created a domain
name identical to the WHATSAPP trademark) does not appear to have been added in an attempt to avoid the
misleading impression created by the Domain Name and, in any event, would be insufficient to do so.
...
2025-07-23 - Case Details
It further comprises a misspelling of the WHATSAPP mark, replacing its last letter
“p” with a “k”. Both trademarks are clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name.
The Complainant further contends the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed
domain name. ...The Panel further notes the disputed domain name contains the WHATS mark as well as a misspelled
version of the WHATSAPP mark, combined with a final letter “k” instead of “p”, which further creates a term
related to the digital field, where the Complainant operates and has obtained its reputation, the term “apk”,
acronym for “Android Package Kit”. ...
2025-01-29 - Case Details
ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Amanda Gosein-Cameron p/k/a Amanda Ghost v. Name Redacted
Case No. D2024-3772
1. The Parties
Complainant is Amanda Gosein-Cameron p/k/a Amanda Ghost, United States of America (“United States”),
represented by Pryor Cashman, LLP, United States.
...Badgley
Sole Panelist
Date: December 7, 2024
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Amanda Gosein-Cameron p/k/a Amanda Ghost v. Name Redacted
Case No. D2024-3772
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Names and Registrars
3. ...
2024-12-10 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name contains the full WIKIPEDIA mark and full WIKIMEDIA mark with the mere substitution of the letter “o” or “m” for the letter “p” [the Panel notes in passing that the Complainant’s contention on this substitution is not quite correct in that the letter “o” in the disputed domain name is substituted for the letters “m” or “p” in the Complainant’s corresponding marks and the present Decision proceeds on that basis]. ...Comparing these to the disputed domain name on a straightforward side-by-side basis, it may be seen that the second level of the disputed domain name is alphanumerically identical to such marks with the exception of a single letter change from “p” to “o” or “m” to “o”, depending upon which trademark one uses for the comparison. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is viewed as a standard registration requirement and, as such, is disregarded under the first element of the Policy.
...
2020-07-30 - Case Details
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the registered owner of a trademark which prominently includes the word "bespoke" and a design element which includes the letters "b", "s", "p" and "k" within a square. If the letters "b", "s", "p" and "k" are ignored, the disputed domain name is relevantly identical to the Complainant's mark.
...One of the majority Panelists does not consider that the smaller letters "b", "s", "p", "k", as included in the Complainant's mark, are sufficiently prominent for this purpose. As they appear in that mark, those letters form part of a relatively small design element, separately appended to the word "bespoke". ...
2014-11-14 - Case Details
It has also earlier been stated in Ape & Partners S. p. A. and PJS International S.A. v. Davis Lin,
WIPO Case No. D2013-1756, that another domain name , was reproducing the trademark PARAJUMPERS in its entirety and incorporated the key element, "parajumpers", of the trademark P.J.S. ...In accordance with the decision in Ape & Partners S. p. A. and PJS International S.A. v. Davis Lin, supra, the Panel finds the disputed domain name to be identical to the trademark PARAJUMPERS and incorporating the key element of P.J.S. ...
2014-06-04 - Case Details
The registered PORSCHE DESIGN logo and trademark have not been used by the Respondent as it uses "P" and "D" in a different format and layout and in uppercase letters whilst the registered "pd" logo is made of small letters.
...This trademark is a device mark but the dominant features of the device are the letters "P" and "D", albeit in stylized form. The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the trademark PD.
...
2016-01-26 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
P&M Products Limited v. Color
Case No. D2002-0652
1. The Parties
The Complainant is P&M Products Limited ("P&M" or "Complainant"), a limited liability company having its principal place of business and registered office at 23-25 Bell Street, Reigate, Surrey, England RH2 7AD, United Kingdom.
...
2002-09-13 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
America Online, Inc. v. Thomas P. Culver Enterprises
Case No. D2001-0564
1. The Parties
The Complainant is America Online, Inc., a corporation organized in the State of Delaware, United States of America (USA), with place of business in Dulles, Virginia, USA.
The Respondent is Thomas P. Culver Enterprises, with address in San Marcos, California, USA.
2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names are and .
...
2001-06-28 - Case Details
It has also authorized TATA Sons Limited to file the complaint as per Annexure P to the complaint.
As per complaint other two domain names i.e. jrdtata. ".com" and "ratantata.com", which apart from containing the trademark TATA of the complainant also incorporates respectively the personal names of the former and present chairman of the complainants. ...J.R.D Tata, have authorized TATA Sons Limited to file the complaint as per Annexure P to the complaint.
The six domain names ("tatapowerco.com", "tatahydro.com", "tatahoneywell.com", "tatayodogawa.com", "tatateleservices.com", and "tatassl.com") have the word Tata as the prefix and the rest of the words indicate one of the respective names or part of names of the companies under the TATA group. ...
2001-02-09 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 29, 2012.
The Center appointed William P. Knight as the sole panelist in this matter on July 9, 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 Complainant in accordance with paragraph 4(i) of the Policy.
William P. Knight
Sole Panelist
Dated: July 23, 2012...
2012-08-03 - Case Details
The disputed domain name exactly reproduces the trademark INTESA SANPAOLO, with the sole differences of the inversion of the letters “p” and “a” and the omission of the letter “o” in the second part SANPAOLO. It is clear, therefore, that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with Complainant’s mark, which clearly is a minor variation of Complainant’s trademark used to identify its online banking service.
...The only differences between Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name are the inversion of letters “p” and “a” and the omission of letter “o” in SANPAOLO. Such variations are not enough to neither avoid confusing similarity nor prevent the likelihood of confusion. ...
2011-12-22 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 11, 2011.
The Center appointed Thomas P. Pinansky as the sole panelist in this matter on October 13, 2011. 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: October 28, 2011...
2011-11-14 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 6, 2012.
The Center appointed Thomas P. Pinansky as the sole panelist in this matter on February 10, 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 disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Thomas P. Pinansky
Sole Panelist
Dated: February 24, 2012...
2012-03-02 - Case Details
The Center appointed John Swinson, Dan Hunter and William P. Knight as the panelists in this matter on May 7, 2012. 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
Presiding Panelist
John Swinson
Panelist
Dan Hunter
Panelist
Dated: May 11, 2012...
2012-05-24 - Case Details
The Response was filed with the Center on October 25, 2012.
The Center appointed Thomas P. Pinansky as the sole panelist in this matter on November 16, 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 disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Thomas P. Pinansky
Sole Panelist
Dated: November 23, 2012...
2012-12-06 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 2, 2004.
The Center appointed P-E Petter Rindforth as the Sole Panelist in this matter on June 15, 2004. 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 names
and , be transferred to the Complainant Ahead Software
AG.
P-E Petter Rindforth
Sole Panelist
Dated: June 29, 2004...
2004-07-08 - Case Details