The only difference between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s Mark is that the disputed domain name includes the letter “l” between the letters “p”, and “f”. Complainant argues that this difference is so miniscule that it does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.
...WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9; see also Wachovia Corporation v. Peter Carrington,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0775.
The only difference between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s Mark is that the disputed domain name includes the letter “l” between the letters “p” and “f”. ...
2020-09-23 - Case Details
ii) Pârâtul nu are drepturi sau interese legitime cu privire la numele de domeniu în litigiu:
Reclamantul nu este afiliat cu Pârâtul și nu l-a autorizat niciodată pe acesta să înregistreze numele de domeniu în litigiu sau să utilizeze în vreun mod marca sa HERBALIFE. ...Însă, paragraful 4(b)(i) din Politică prevede că înregistrarea numelui de domeniu în litigiu trebuie să fie facută în primul rând pentru scopul de a-l revinde, transfera pentru o sumă considerabilă în exces față de costurile demonstrabile direct legate de numele de domeniu în cauză. ...
2013-09-19 - Case Details
The Complainant also claims that Mr. Mueller has used the name “Gero L Steiner” previously in Internet forums, and provides a copy of a website apparently to that effect, dated from October 2006. ...The Respondent claims to be commonly known by the name “Gero Leon Steiner”, “Gero L Steiner” or “Leon Steiner” and maintains a bank account under the name “Gero L Steiner”. For that purpose, the Respondent attaches a copy of the first two pages of a bank statement, addressed to ‘Gero L Steiner'. ...
2008-11-18 - Case Details
Le Défendeur est M. Peter McCann/First Day Group de Montréal, Québec, Canada.
2. Le nom de domaine et l’unité d’enregistrement
Le litige concerne le nom de domaine (ci-après "le nom de domaine").
...DomainBaron.com
(WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center case
No. D2001-0470) (Annexe [L]) et une copie de la décision Bundesrepublik
Deutschland (Federal Republic of Germany) c. RJG Engineering Inc.
...
2002-12-27 - Case Details
The Response was filed with the Center on June 10, 2003.
The Center appointed Peter G. Nitter as the sole panelist in this matter on June 20, 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.
Peter G. Nitter
Sole Panelist
Dated: July 4, 2003...
2003-07-07 - Case Details
The Respondent is relying on common misspellings (typos) of the Complainant’s mark, i.e. substituting the “L” in AIRTEL with an “I”, to appear confusingly similar to the Complainant’s website “www.airtel.com”. ...Moreover, in some fonts the letters “i” and “l” seem identical. This further adds to the confusion.
The Panel finds that the Complainant’s trademark AIRTEL is well-known, having a significant presence in the telecommunications industry with tremendous goodwill and reputation transcending Indian borders. ...
2015-06-23 - Case Details
Complainant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. uses SAM WALTON as a common law trademark for toy trucks that it markets, in connection with its “Sam’s Club” subsidiary which operates 500 membership retail stores in the United States, and in connection with its SAM’S CHOICE line of groceries, on which Sam Walton’s name, business philosophy, and signature appear. Complaint, Annexes J, K, and L.
Respondent registered the domain name at issue on August 22, 2004. Complaint, Annex A. Respondent uses the domain name at issue to resolve to a web site which serves as a link farm service. ...In the former case, one would look to
the law of the deceased’s residence. See Estate of Stanley Getz aka
Stan Getz v. Peter Vogel, WIPO Case No.
D2000-0773 (finding that California Civil Code Section 3344.1 provided that
the use of the name of a deceased personality passes through his estate and
could not be used absent the express consent of his heirs). ...
2005-04-11 - Case Details
And finally, the Disputed Domain Name is misspelled by adding the letter “l” in the word “Naughty,” resulting in the misspelled word “Naughtly.”
These minor differences in spelling are insignificant and do not preclude a finding of confusing similarity with Complainant’s registered NAUGHTY AMERICA mark. ...D2010-1118 “Typosquatting occurs when a respondent purposefully includes typographical errors in the mark portion of a disputed domain name to divert Internet users who make those typographical errors.”; see, also, Wachovia Corporation v. Peter Carrington,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0775 “This conduct, commonly referred to as ‘typo squatting,’ creates a virtually identical and/or confusingly similar mark to the Complainant’s trademark under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.”.
...
2010-11-26 - Case Details
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the BHP BILLITON trade marks. The transposition of the letters “i” and “l” seeks to maintain clear visual similarity with the BHP BILLITON trademarks and the Panel finds that the difference thereby created is not such as would plainly distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s marks – indeed it is calculated to do the opposite.
...Elizabeth Riegel and Andrew Riegel,
WIPO Case No.D2005-1045;
Telstra Corporation Ltd v. Peter Lombardo, Marino Sussich and Ray Landers,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1511;
PepsiCo Inc. v. Pepsi SRL (a/k/a P.E.P.S.I.) and EMS COMPUTER INDUSTRY,
WIPO Case No. ...
2017-06-08 - Case Details
The Parties
The Complainant is PHE, Inc., C/O John L. Myers, Hillsborough, North Carolina, United States of America, represented by Foley Hoag, LLP, United States of America.
...In
fact, Respondent
was purposely
capitalizing
on the trade
value of
Complainant’s
well-established
and heavily
marketed
trademarks
to sell
competing
goods. See
Peter
Frampton
v. Frampton
Enterprises,
Inc.,
WIPO
Case No.
D2002-0141,
which held
that the
use of a
domain name
which incorporates
a registered
mark in
order to
sell products
in the same
class as
mark holder
inherently
and intentionally
seeks to
exploit
user confusion,
and therefore
cannot constitute
bona fide
use. ...
2003-08-28 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
(1) Robert L. Goldman and (2) CELS Enterprises, Inc. v. Domain Administration Limited/ David Halstead
Case No. D2008-0239
1. The Parties
The Complainants are:
Robert L. Goldman an individual of the United States of America (referred to as “Mr Goldman” or the “Complainant”) and CELS Enterprises, Inc., Los Angeles, California, United States of America (referred to as “CELS” or the “Complainant”) (together referred to as the “Complainants”), jointly represented by Fulwider Patton LLP, United States of America.
...
2008-04-24 - Case Details
The Center appointed Harrie R. Samaras, John Swinson and Steven L. Snyder as panelists in this matter on November 18, 2008. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. ...Samaras
Presiding Panelist
John Swinson
Panelist
Steven L. Snyder
Panelist
Dated: December 1, 2008...
2008-12-12 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is a deliberate misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark. The addition of the letter “l” does not significantly affect the appearance or the pronunciation of the disputed domain name.
It further results from the Complainant’s undisputed contentions that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...Finally, it is the view of this Panel that adding the letter “l” to the disputed domain name does not avoid the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark, in particular regarding its wording and pronunciation. ...
2020-03-12 - Case Details
Or loss more money and waste time.”
A further email from Dr. Dawoud said, “[l]et me know if you need Dawchemicals legal documents copy To be sure there is no any relationship with DOW. ...The right to use one’s own name is not unlimited and cannot be used to circumvent well-known prior rights in a similar name – see for example Peter Frampton v. Frampton Enterprises, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0141:
“While the Panel recognizes that any individual has a right to use his(her) name in connection with a business, that right is not unfettered; instead, it is circumscribed by the prior trademark rights of others who use that name in connection with specific goods and services, as is certainly the case here.
...
2019-12-10 - Case Details
k) Furthermore, notwithstanding the protestations of the Respondent’s attorneys in July, 2001, the Respondent has taken no steps to use the name "Mastertent" to promote any of its products.
(l) Indeed, the evidence strongly suggests that the Respondent was fully aware of the Complainant products and of the Trade Mark, before registering the Domain Name.
...Accordingly, the Panel determines in accordance with paragraph 15 of the Rules that the Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant, Zingerle Metal SrL, in accordance with paragraph 4(i) of the UDRP.
William Peter Knight
Sole Panelist
Dated: December 21, 2001...
2002-01-11 - Case Details
de C.V., Estrategia Televisa S.A. de C.V.,
Videoserpel Ltd v Party Night Inc. a/k/a Peter Carrington, WIPO Case No. D2003-0796, Spherion Corporation v Peter Carrington d/b/a
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?...A search on the expression “Montblanc-iran.com” returns, as the first hit, a l...
In addition, the Complainants have a very substantial presence on social media – they have millions of followers on Facebook, Instagram, X, Pinterest and YouTube, where Internet users can follow the Complainants and their MONTBLANC products. ...
2024-06-04 - Case Details
The Parties
The Complainant is ITT Manufacturing Enterprises Inc., a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at Wilmington, Delaware, U.S.A. The Complainant is represented by Mr. Peter A Abruzzese of Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel LLP, Attorneys of New York, N.Y., U.S.A.
The Respondent is IT&T AG, of Zug, Switzerland. ...Samuels of the University of Akron Ohio Law School and Dr. Thomas Legler of Python Schifferli Peter and Partners of Geneva to be Panelists. It transmitted to each of them a statement of acceptance and requested a declaration of impartiality and independence.
...
2001-05-09 - Case Details
Here, instead of the misspelling being obvious, because the appearance of three consecutive characters of the letter “L” in lower case is difficult to distinguish from two consecutive characters of the letter “L” in lower case, the misspelling is not only not obvious, but more likely than not will be missed, even by a careful observer.
Although words with two consecutive “L” letters are fairly common in the English language, the Panel is unaware of any English words or names with three consecutive “L” letters. ...
2019-06-17 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondents of their default on December 19, 2004.
The Center appointed Frank L. Politano as the sole panelist in this matter on January 31, 2005. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. ...It is well established that the addition to a powerful mark of generic words
related to the service or product does not defeat the argument that the marks
are identical or confusingly similar. See, e.g. Harrods Limited v. Peter
Pierre (WIPO Case No. D2001-0456);
Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Vasiliy Terkin (WIPO
Case No. ...
2005-02-28 - Case Details
ii) The domain names and differ only in the addition of a second “l” to the Complainant’s registered trademarks “T-MOBILE”. This again is a typical case of “typo-piracy”. ...D2003-0172;
Lanco, Inc., Lane Bryant, Inc. and Charming Shoppes, Inc. v. Party Night,
Inc., c/o Peter Carrington, WIPO Case
No. D2003-0173; Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Domains by Proxy, Inc.
and Vladimir Putinov, WIPO Case No. ...
2006-01-26 - Case Details