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
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 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
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
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
Whereas in earlier decisions the Swiss Federal Tribunal held that the content of a website under the corresponding trademark shall be disregarded (see sic! 2003, p. 822 ; ATF 128 III 401, 403 et seq. ), a more recent decision suggests otherwise. The Swiss Federal Supreme Court has held that content of a website operated under a domain name must be taken into account when examining the likelihood of confusion (see sic! 2005, p. 283 ). It follows that, in an assessment of the risks of confusion under the Swiss Trademark Act, both the degree of similarity of the signs as well as the similarity of the respective goods and/or services may be taken into account. ...
2008-02-19 - 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
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 April 17, 2008.
The Center appointed Thomas P. Pinansky as the sole panelist in this matter on April 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.
Thomas P. Pinansky
Sole Panelist
Date: April 29, 2008...
2008-05-07 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 3, 2005.
The Center appointed Thomas P. Pinansky as the sole
panelist in this matter on August 18, 2005. 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: August 26, 2005...
2005-09-14 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 27, 2005.
The Center appointed Mr. P-E H Petter Rindforth as the sole panelist in this matter on September 29, 2005. 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: October 25, 2005...
2005-11-03 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 2, 2006.
The Center appointed Thomas P. Pinansky as the sole
panelist in this matter on August 14, 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.
Thomas P. Pinansky
Sole Panelist
Dated: August 18, 2008...
2006-08-30 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 10, 2006.
The Center appointed Mr. P-E Petter Rindforth as the sole panelist in this matter on April 18, 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 Complaint is denied.
P-E H Petter Rindforth
Sole Panelist
Dated: May 17, 2006...
2006-06-07 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 10, 2006.
The Center appointed P-E H Petter Rindforth as the sole panelist in this matter on April 6, 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 Complaint is denied.
P-E H Petter Rindforth
Sole Panelist
Dated: May 17, 2006...
2006-06-07 - Case Details
On June 21, 2002, in view
of the Complainant’s designation of a single panelist, the Center invited Mr.
P-E H Petter Rindforth to serve as a panelist.
Having received Mr. Rindforth’s
Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, the
Center, on June 24, 2002, 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 paragraph 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders
that the Domain Name be cancelled.
P-E H Petter
Rindforth
Sole Panelist
Dated: July
2, 2002...
2002-07-08 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Teollisuuden Voima OY v Jarno P. Vastamäki
Case No. D2001-0321
1. The Parties
Complainant is Teollisuuden Voima OY, Töölönkatu 4, FIN, 00100 Helsinki, Finland represented by Georg R. ...Souter, Esq., Lammi & Partners OY, attorney, P.O.Box 1214, FIN-00100 Helsinki, Finland, hereinafter the "Complainant".
Respondent is Jarno P. Vastamäki, Länsitorikatu 3 A 1, FIN-35800 Mänttä, Finland,
hereinafter the "Respondent".
2. Domain Names and Registrar
The domain names in dispute are and .
...
2001-05-07 - Case Details