The Parties
The Complainant is SONAE S.G.P.S., S.A. a company based in Portugal, with its place of incorporation and principal place of business at Lugar do Espido, Via Norte, P 4472-909 Maia, Portugal, (the "Complainant"). Respondent is, according to the documentation enclosed to the Complaint, and Registrar's database, Filipe Pinto, an individual with address at Rua Principal no. 900, Bidoeira de Cima, P 2400-852 Leiria, Portugal, (the "Respondent").
2. ...
2001-02-13 - Case Details
The Parties
Complainant is Talal Abu-Ghazaleh, Queen Noor Street, P. O. Box 921100, Amman 11192, Jordan.
The joint Respondents in the present case are Tony Dabbas, P. ...
2001-01-29 - Case Details
On December 8, 2000, 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 December 13, 2000, transmitted to the parties a Notification of Appointment of Administrative Panel and Projected Decision Date, in which Mr. ...Therefore, pursuant to paragraphs 4 of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel denies the Complainant’s request to transfer the disputed Domain Name to the Complainant Nilfisk-Advance A/S.
P-E Petter Rindforth
Sole Panelist
Dated: December 27, 2000...
2001-01-04 - Case Details
Although Complainant’s mark is descriptive, there is sufficient evidence it has acquired good will through its use in selling recorded music since Complainant began doing business in 1996 (Complaint pp. 4-7 and Appendices C, F and P).
The domain name in dispute, differs from Complainant’s trademark only by the addition of an "s". ...However, as Complainant points out, many other decisions under the Policy have found that even the passive holding of a domain name that infringes a trademark can constitute bad faith use (Complaint, p. 17; see for example, Chernow Communications v. Kimball, WIPO Case No. D2000-0119; also Mondich and American Wine Biscuits, Inc. v. ...
2000-12-28 - Case Details
The Complainant is represented by: Amy B. Goldsmith, Esq. and Marc P. Misthal, Esq., Gottlieb, Rackman & Reisman, P.C., 270 Madison Ave., New York, New York 10016, U.S.A.
...And finally, the Panel does not believe a businessman who endeavors to sell goods from watches to children's videos can be in any doubt that when he registers four (4) domain name versions of the illustrious automobile trademark "Ferrari", he is infringing others' trademark rights (Response p. 4).
The specific bad faith registration provisions of the Policy are perhaps not applicable, but they are illustrative and not exhaustive (Pharmacia & Upjohn Company v. ...
2001-02-22 - 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
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
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 Case No. D2000-0009,
p. 6 or WIPO Case No. D2000-0867, p. 6).
It is the Sole Panelist’s finding that the Complainants have established that
the trade and service marks "BRICORAMA" have been known in Europe
for a notable period of time. ...
2001-06-12 - Case Details
Complainant has designed dresses for famous female celebrities (see Attachment 12, p. 15) and has won a number of awards in connection with the business it carries out (see Attachment 7, p. 9-11).
5. ...
2002-10-23 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 9, 2003.
The Center appointed Christopher P. Tootal as the sole Panelist in this matter on January 17, 2003. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. ...Therefore, in accordance with Paragraph 4(i) of the Policy the Panelist orders that the Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant, Six Continents Hotels, Inc.
Christopher P. Tootal
Sole Panelist
Dated: January 24, 2003...
2003-02-05 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 10, 2004.
The Center appointed P-E H Petter Rindforth as the sole panelist in this matter on March 18, 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 name, be transferred to the Complainant Habib Bank AG Zurich.
P-E H Petter Rindforth
Sole Panelist
Dated: March 31, 2004...
2004-04-15 - Case Details
Diskussion och Slutsatser
Sökanden har visat att bolaget har rätt till varu- och näringskännetecken, enligt p. 7.2.1 i Registreringsvillkoren, vilka innehåller ordet “Öhmanˮ, som ett dominerande kännetecken. Domännamnet är i vart fall liknande med Sökandens företagsnamn.
...
2018-05-17 - Case Details
Mere “assertions” are nothing more than argument and must in each case be based on facts proved through evidence”.
3 In The Skin Store, Inc. v. eSkinStore.com,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0661, it was established: “The [p]anel suspects [...] that further evidence could have been produced, but it is not the job of the [p]anel to hunt it out”. See also GA Modefine S.A. v. Sparco P/L,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0419.
4 See Fundación Calvin Ayre Foundation v. Erik Deutsch,
WIPO Case No. ...
2013-03-05 - Case Details
Complainant used online domain appraisal tools that show that, compared to the value of Complainant’s
domain name, which the appraisal tools value at USD 523,000, domain names that are
unrelated to Complainant, but nonetheless include the term “converse”, were estimated to have a value far
below the price that Respondent set for the Disputed Domain Name. Complaint at p. 15 and Complainant's
Annex 17.
Given the fame of Complainant’s Mark and the implausibility of purported good faith use, Respondent’s use
of the Disputed Domain Name was in bad faith under Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...Id, p. 10)
Unlike the clear and unequivocal declarations denying knowledge that Respondent offered in Sage Global, in
this case Respondent concedes awareness of Complainant’s rights and does not offer evidence to rebut the
adverse inferences from its pricing. ...
2024-06-10 - Case Details
Complainant alleges that the Respondent is Daniel Deamone ("Respondent" or "Deamone") whose mailing address is P. O. Box 803, Niagara Falls, New York 14302, USA. Respondent is alleged to have an additional mailing address under the names D. ...To the extent that Respondent has a mailing address at P. O. Box 803, Niagara Falls, New York 14302 USA, the Sole Panelist will review the evidence proffered by Complainant to verify whether the essential elements of the claims are met.
...
2001-11-22 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 5, 2011.
The Center appointed Thomas P. Pinansky as the sole panelist in this matter on April 12, 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: April 25, 2011...
2011-05-10 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 3, 2012.
The Center appointed William P. Knight as the sole panelist in this matter on January 13, 2012. 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: January 17, 2012...
2012-02-07 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 5, 2012.
The Center appointed Thomas P. Pinansky as the sole panelist in this matter on March 14, 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: April 4, 2012
1 While the Panel notes that the disputed domain name is currently in active, this does not change the Panel’s findings....
2012-04-13 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 10, 2013.
The Center appointed William P. Knight as the sole panelist in this matter on May 16, 2013. 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 18, 2013...
2013-05-31 - Case Details
For instance, upon a comparison between the spelling of the disputed domain name and the spelling of the Complainant’s trademarks, the Panel finds:
S A N P A O L O I M I
S A N A P A O L O I M I
The only difference between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s registered trademarks is the letter “A” included in the domain name . ...
2010-11-24 - Case Details