WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
National Westminster Bank plc v. John P Odonohue
Case No. D2014-1527
1. The Parties
The Complainant is National Westminster Bank plc of London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is John P Odonohue of California, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc (the "Registrar").
3. ...
2014-11-03 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 3, 2014.
The Center appointed Thomas P. Pinansky as the sole panelist in this matter on July 10, 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 Domain Names, and , be transferred to the Complainant.
Thomas P. Pinansky
Sole Panelist
Date: July 14, 2014...
2014-07-30 - Case Details
Richi Industry S. r. l.,
WIPO Case No. D2001-1206; Utensilerie Associate S. p. A. v. C & M,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0159; Lilly Icos LLC. v. John Hopking/ Neo net Ltd. ,
WIPO Case No. ...In fact, the Panel sees no plausible explanation for Respondent’s adoption of the term “valium” in conjunction with the figure “4” and term “bitcoins” in the disputed domain name other than to attract for commercial gain Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trademark. See Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847.
The disputed domain name is used to resolve to a website offering generic products identical to Complainant’s Valium products, and which are sold under Complainant’s VALIUM trademark. ...
2014-06-18 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 20, 2014.
The Center appointed Thomas P. Pinansky as the sole panelist in this matter on June 24, 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.
Thomas P. Pinansky
Sole Panelist
Date: June 27, 2014...
2014-07-04 - Case Details
Whether the revenue derived is received by the Respondent or Instra is of no consequence. This use is strictly prohibited under [p]aragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.”
Complainant also points out that Respondent has registered a number of domain names incorporating other well-known marks, such as BURBERRY, FCUK, PRADA, and HARRY WINSTON, along with the “.tokyo” top-level extension. ...The registration of multiple domain names consisting of third party trade marks forms a pattern of conduct as per [p]aragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy, whereby the registration prevents the owner of the mark from reflecting [its] mark in a corresponding domain name. ...
2015-02-05 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 11, 2015.
The Center appointed William P. Knight as the sole panelist in this matter on August 17, 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 Domain Name, , be transferred to the Complainant.
William P. Knight
Sole Panelist
Date: August 28, 2015...
2015-09-11 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 7, 2016.
The Center appointed Thomas P. Pinansky as the sole panelist in this matter on November 16, 2016. 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: December 3, 2016...
2016-12-13 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
John P. Cusack v. Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp.
Case No. D2016-1460
1. The Parties
The Complainant is John P. ...
2016-09-13 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on January 8, 2016.
The Center appointed William P. Knight as the sole panelist in this matter on January 20, 2016. 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: January 25, 2016...
2016-01-29 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Arla Foods Amba v. Joan P Evans
Case No. D2016-0473
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Arla Foods Amba of Viby J, Denmark, represented by BrandIT Legal AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Joan P Evans of Tennessee, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Ascio Technologies Inc. ...
2016-04-25 - Case Details
As stressed by many UDRP decisions, in such a case the burden of production shifts to the respondent to rebut the evidence (see among others Arla Foods Amba v. Joan P Evans,
WIPO Case No. D2016-0473; Barry Callebaut AG, Barry Callebaut Belgium NV v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd,
WIPO Case No. ...The lack of active use of a domain name does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith (see Arla Foods Amba v. Joan P Evans, supra; Vertu Corporation Limited v. David Szn and Jun Luo, supra; Accor, So Luxury HMC v. Youness Itsmail,
WIPO Case No. ...
2016-05-24 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on July 12, 2017.
The Center appointed William P. Knight as the sole panelist in this matter on July 18, 2017. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. ...Accordingly, the Panel determines in accordance with paragraph 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
William P. Knight
Sole Panelist
Date: July 20, 2017...
2017-07-27 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 14, 2013.
The Center appointed Thomas P. Pinansky as the sole panelist in this matter on August 21, 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 disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Thomas P. Pinansky
Sole Panelist
Date: August 30, 2013...
2013-09-16 - Case Details
Although Respondent appears to have ceased this practice of automatic re-direction of visitors to its pornographic website (referred to as "site-jacking" by Complainant at Complaint, p. 1), at this time Respondent still retains active registration of the domain name. See Complaint, paragraph 12(d).
...To support its contention, Complainant cites a number of WIPO domain name decisions where prefixes or suffixes such as "myOracle", "bodyshop-digital", "att2000" and "attweb" have been held to be so generic as to create substantial confusion. See Complaint, Paragraph 13(a), at p. 11. Although "hola" at first seems less generic than these other prefixes and suffixes, the Panel finds that for Spanish speakers who seek information about telecommunications products and services, the probability of confusion with Complainant’s products, services and activities is very high. ...
2001-10-19 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
The Clorox Company v. TechLever Inc.
Case No. D2001-0914/P>
1. The Parties
The Complainant is the Clorox Company, a State of Delaware (USA) corporation
with principal place of business at 1221 Broadway, Oakland, California 94612,
U.S.A.
...FA0101000096454, February 28, 2001)
Legitimate Rights or Interests
The Complainant categorically states it "has no connection with the Respondent
or its business" (the Complaint p. 10). The Respondent is in default and
thus has not attempted to come forward to show any legitimate rights or
interests in the disputed domain name under the Policy at 4(c).
...
2002-02-28 - Case Details
See Singapore
Airlines Limited v European Travel Network, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0641; Singapore Airlines Limited v P&P Servicios de
Communication S.L., WIPO Case No. D2000-0643;
See also Singapore Airlines Limited v. ...
2002-08-02 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 6, 2003.
The Center appointed Christopher P. Tootal as the sole panelist in this matter on May 15, 2003. 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, Harrods Limited.
Christopher P. Tootal
Sole Panelist
Dated: May 23, 2003...
2003-06-06 - 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 Nos. D2000-0009,
p.6, or D2000-0867, p.6).
It is the Sole Panelist’s finding that the Complainant has established that the trademarks "LANCOME" and "LANCOME PARIS" have been known in Europe and the United States for a long period of time. ...
2001-08-06 - 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. ...This Panel’s decision concerns CLD as the registrant, it does not concern any other respondents’ name in the complaint.
P-E Petter Rindforth
Sole Panelist
Dated: December 27, 2000...
2001-01-04 - Case Details
On information and belief, Respondent has registered domain names with the sole intention of selling those domain names to the holders of identical trademarks. See Complaint and Exhs. E through N and P. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that by obtaining the domain name , Respondent has used it in bad faith and prevented Complainant from registering for legitimate use in connection with its trademarked products and services. ...Complaint, Page 5 Complainant alleges that Respondent has exhibited a pattern of registering domain names associated with commonly known trademarks for the purpose of selling those names to the owner of the registered trademark, or to the highest bidder. Complaint, Exhs. F through P. Complainant also alleges that Respondent has redirected these site to other sites, further evidence that Respondent has no legitimate interest in using the for any legitimate use. ...
2000-10-17 - Case Details