ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER
DECISÃO DO PAINEL ADMINISTRATIVO
Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. v. P. Z.
Caso No. DBR2024-0005
1. As Partes
A Reclamante é Société des Produits Nestlé S.A., Suíça, representada por Studio Barbero S.p.A., Itália.
O Reclamado é P. Z., Brasil.
2. O Nome de Domínio e a Unidade de Registro
O nome de domínio em disputa é , o qual está registrado perante o NIC.BR.
3. ...
2024-06-28 - 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.
...
2025-04-23 - Case Details
The Complainant holds at least 65 United States trademark registrations for or incorporating PUBLIX, such
as the following:
- United States trademark registration number 1339762 for PUBLIX (word), registered on June 4, 1985, for
services in International class 42; and
- United States trademark registration number 1373131 for P PUBLIX (stylized), registered on November 26,
1985, for services in International class 42.
The Complainant’s official website is available under the domain name and was registered on
January 1, 1995.
The disputed domain name was registered on March 30, 2024, and, at the time of filing of the Complaint, it
resolved to a website displaying the Complainant’s trademarks, including the stylized mark P PUBLIX (even
displaying the ® /”registered trademark” symbol) and the green color (similar to the Complainant’s official
website). ...
2024-10-09 - 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.
...
2024-12-13 - Case Details
Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Section 3.1.4 of WIPO Overview 3.0 provides that “[p]anels have consistently found that the mere
registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising
typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a famous or widely-known trademark by an
unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith”. Additionally, section 3.2.1 of WIPO
Overview 3.0 provides that “[p]articular circumstances panels may take into account in assessing whether
the respondent’s registration of a domain name is in bad faith include: (i) the nature of the domain name
(e.g., a typo of a widely-known mark, or a domain name incorporating the complainant’s mark plus an
additional term such as a descriptive or geographic term, or one that corresponds to the complainant’s area
of activity or natural zone of expansion) [...] ...
2022-04-08 - Case Details
Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Section 3.1.4 of WIPO Overview 3.0 provides that “[p]anels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith.” Additionally, section 3.2.1 of WIPO Overview 3.0 provides that “[p]articular circumstances panels may take into account in assessing whether the respondent’s registration of a domain name is in bad faith include: (i) the nature of the domain name (e.g., a typo of a widely-known mark, or a domain name incorporating the complainant’s mark plus an additional term such as a descriptive or geographic term, or one that corresponds to the complainant’s area of activity or natural zone of expansion) [...] ...
2022-02-07 - Case Details
Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Section 3.1.4 of WIPO Overview 3.0 provides that “[p]anels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith.” Additionally, section 3.2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 provides that “[p]articular circumstances panels may take into account in assessing whether the respondent’s registration of a domain name is in bad faith include: (i) the nature of the domain name (e.g., a typo of a widely-known mark, or a domain name incorporating the complainant’s mark plus an additional term such as a descriptive or geographic term, or one that corresponds to the complainant’s area of activity or natural zone of expansion) . . . ...
2021-11-05 - Case Details
The Parties
The Complainant is National Council of State Boards of Nursing, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Vedder Price P. C., United States.
The Respondent is Tom Harley, License and Certificate, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Tucows Inc. ...The Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name indicate that such registration and use has been done for the specific purpose of trading on the name and reputation of the Complainant and its NCLEX Mark. See Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847 (“[t]he only plausible explanation for Respondent’s actions appears to be an intentional effort to trade upon the fame of Complainant’s name and mark for commercial gain”).
...
2021-11-25 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 10, 2018.
The Center appointed Thomas P. Pinansky, Michelle Brownlee and Gregory N. Albright as panelists in this matter on October 1, 2018. ...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
Presiding Panelist
Michelle Brownlee
Panelist
Gregory N. Albright
Panelist
Date: October 15, 2018...
2018-10-24 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on July 12, 2017.
The Center appointed Thomas P. Pinansky as the sole panelist in this matter on July 21, 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 Complainant.
Thomas P. Pinansky
Sole Panelist
Date: August 3, 2017...
2017-08-11 - 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.”
(I) Consolidation of Respondents
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, in part, 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. ...
2018-07-06 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 29, 2018.
The Center appointed William P. Knight as the sole panelist in this matter on June 7, 2018. The Panel finds that the Complaint was properly served in accordance with the Rules and that it was properly constituted. ...Accordingly, the Panel determines in accordance with paragraph 15 of the Rules that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant in accordance with paragraph 4(i) of the Policy.
William P. Knight
Sole Panelist
Date: June 8, 2018...
2018-06-19 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 24, 2018.
The Center appointed Thomas P. Pinansky as the sole panelist in this matter on November 5, 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: November 19, 2018...
2018-11-27 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 12, 2019.
The Center appointed Thomas P. Pinansky as the sole panelist in this matter on March 21, 2019. 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: March 29, 2019...
2019-04-12 - Case Details
In this case, the Panel considers that the disputed domain name is clearly selected by intentionally misspelling the Complainant’s trademark for ZIPRECRUITER, incorporating such trademark in its entirety, except that a single character (“p”) of the trademark is omitted. According to the Panel, this is a clear case of intentional misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark, or “typosquatting”. ...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The registration of the disputed domain name, which incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety, except for the intentional omission of the “p”, is clearly intended to mislead and divert consumers away from the Complainant’s official website, to the website linked to the disputed domain name. ...
2020-01-10 - Case Details
In addition to the above, according to the Complainant, the Respondent’s bad faith may also be corroborated by the lack of reply to the cease and desist letter sent by the Complainant (Annex P to the Complaint).
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. ...Two other factors corroborate the finding of the Respondent’s bad faith conduct in this case: the Respondent’s lack of reply to the cease and desist letter (Annex P to the Complaint), and the use of a false address in the WhoIs data and, consequently, the Written Notice was not delivered to it.
...
2020-06-03 - Case Details
Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Section 3.1.4 of WIPO Overview 3.0 provides that “[p]anels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith”. Additionally, section 3.2.1 of WIPO Overview 3.0 provides that “[p]articular circumstances panels may take into account in assessing whether the respondent’s registration of a domain name is in bad faith include: (i) the nature of the domain name (e.g., a typo of a widely-known mark, or a domain name incorporating the complainant’s mark plus an additional term such as a descriptive or geographic term, or one that corresponds to the complainant’s area of activity or natural zone of expansion), […] (vi) a clear absence of rights or legitimate interests coupled with no credible explanation for the respondent’s choice of the domain name, or (viii) other indicia generally suggesting that the respondent had somehow targeted the complainant.”
...
2020-06-02 - Case Details
Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Section 3.1.4 of WIPO Overview 3.0 further provides that “[p]anels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith.” ...Additionally, Section 3.2.1 of WIPO Overview 3.0 provides that “[p]articular circumstances panels may take into account in assessing whether the respondent’s registration of a domain name is in bad faith include: (i) the nature of the domain name (e.g., a typo of a widely-known mark, or a domain name incorporating the complainant’s mark plus an additional term such as a descriptive or geographic term, or one that corresponds to the complainant’s area of activity or natural zone of expansion), (ii) the chosen top-level domain (e.g., particularly where corresponding to the complainant’s area of business activity or natural zone of expansion), (iii) the content of any website to which the domain name directs, including any changes in such content and the timing thereof, (iv) the timing and circumstances of the registration (particularly following a product launch, or the complainant’s failure to renew its domain name registration), (v) any respondent pattern of targeting marks along a range of factors, such as a common area of commerce, intended consumers, or geographic location, (vi) a clear absence of rights or legitimate interests coupled with no credible explanation for the respondent’s choice of the domain name, or (viii) other indicia generally suggesting that the respondent had somehow targeted the complainant.” ...
2020-04-27 - Case Details
Therefore, by applying the requirement of identical or confusing similarity of the test under the Policy, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark due to the Respondent’s addition of the letter “p” between the Complainant’s trademark term “zip” and “recruiter” in the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant further looks at the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.9 to affirm that for the purposes of the first element it is a general consensus that a domain name which consists of a common, obvious or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by Panels to be confusingly similar.
...The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the ZIPRECRUITER trademark in its entirety, with the additional letter “p” in between “zip” and “recruiter”. Where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, it will normally be considered confusingly similar to the mark (see section 1.7 of WIPO Overview 3.0). ...
2020-04-23 - Case Details
The Response was filed with the Center on October 29, 2018.
The Center appointed Thomas P. Pinansky as the sole panelist in this matter on November 12, 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, BIOPHA.
Thomas P. Pinansky
Sole Panelist
Date: November 30, 2018...
2018-12-07 - Case Details