Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 22, 2007.
The Center appointed P-E H Petter Rindforth as the sole panelist in this matter on October 29, 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: November 12, 2007...
2007-11-27 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 11, 2007.
The Center appointed William P. Knight as the sole panelist in this matter on October 4, 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.
William P. Knight
Sole Panelist
Dated: October 18, 2007...
2007-10-31 - 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
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
Denny Hammerton, NAF Claim No. 95633; Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847; Nik Carter v. The Afternoon Fiasco,
WIPO Case No. ...Further, “[u]se which intentionally trades on the fame of another cannot constitute a ‘bona fide' offering of goods or services” (Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna supra).
The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...
2009-03-09 - 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 Complainant is the owner, amongst others, of the following word trademark registrations for BARRY CALLEBAUT:
- Swiss trademark No. P-453449, filed on March 5, 1998, in classes 29 and 30;
- International trademark No. 702211, registered on September 4, 1998, in classes 29 and 30;
- United States trademark No. 2320385, filed on May 11, 1998, in international classes 29 and 30.
...The Complainant informs the Panel that it submitted the Swiss trademark No. P-453449 for BARRY CALLEBAUT into the Trademark Clearinghouse on January 10, 2014 and asserts that the Respondent and the Complainant have received notices from the Trademark Clearinghouse in which the collision of the disputed domain name with the Complainant's trademark was mentioned but, nevertheless, the Respondent did not refrain from registering the disputed domain name.
...
2015-01-13 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 11, 2014.
The Center appointed William P. Knight as the sole panelist in this matter on February 19, 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 disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
William P. Knight
Sole Panelist
Date: February 24, 2014...
2014-03-12 - Case Details
The Complainant claims to be the owner of Swiss registered trademark no. P-464274 for the word mark ROBERT KENNEDY UNIVERSITY, registered on March 16, 1999. This trademark does not however appear to be owned by the Complainant but by an entity named “Robert Kennedy University”, which has a different address in Zurich from that of the Complainant. ...Complainant
The Complainant’s contentions are limited and, subject to minor amendments made by the Panel to spelling and grammar may be quoted verbatim:
The Complainant is the owner of the trademark ROBERT KENNEDY UNIVERSITY under number P-464274 registered in Switzerland since 1999 and the trademark ROBERT KENNEDY COLLEGE registered in Switzerland, the USA and Canada.
...
2014-03-04 - 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 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 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
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on June 23, 2014.
The Center appointed William P. Knight as the sole panelist in this matter on June 26, 2014. 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.
William P. Knight
Sole Panelist
Date: July 8, 2014...
2014-07-25 - 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. ...
2021-09-22 - 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.
...
2023-10-17 - Case Details
Whereas in earlier decisions the Swiss Federal Tribunal held that the content
of a website under the corresponding trademark was to be disregarded (see sic! 2003, p. 822 ;
ATF 128 III 401, 403 et seq. ), this jurisprudence was modified, and the principle of specialty
applicable to trademarks implies that the content of a website under the corresponding trademark needs to
be taken in consideration under trademark law (see the decision of principle sic! 2005, p. 283
and the later decisions based on it).
In the present case, the website to which the disputed domain name reverts leads to a website on
anonymous erotic encounters. ...
2023-09-28 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is composed of the
Complainant’s trademark adding to it the letter “p”, which is next to the letter “o” on the keyboard. This is a
case of typosquatting that creates confusion.
...The disputed domain name is a reproduction of the Complainant’s trademark adding to it the letter “p”,
adjacent to the letter “o” on the QWERTY keyboard and also the last letter of the Complainant’s trademark,
representing typosquatting and thus not preventing a finding of confusing similarity. ...
2024-01-18 - 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.
...
2024-10-08 - 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.”
Paragraph 4.16 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”) summarizes the consensus view of UDRP panels on the consolidation of multiple complainants as follows:
UDRP panels have articulated principles governing the question of whether a complaint filed with the Center by multiple complainants may be brought against one or more respondents. ...
2017-01-23 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent of its default on December 2, 2015.
The Center appointed Thomas P. Pinansky as the sole panelist in this matter on December 16, 2015. 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: January 7, 2016...
2016-01-18 - Case Details