The only differences between the Complainant's ZIONS BANK trademark and the disputed domain name, , are the substitution of the letter "l" for the letter "k" and the addition of the ".com" suffix. The only difference between the Complainant's ZIONSBANK.COM trademark and the disputed domain name, , is the substitution of the letter "l" for the letter "k".
...See WIPO Overview 2.0, section 1.9.
The substitution of the letter "l" for the letter "k" appears to be a deliberate misspelling that reflects the fact that the letters "k" and "l" are next to each other on the standard QWERTY keyboard. ...
2015-04-21 - Case Details
The Response was filed with the Center February 25, 2006.
3.3 The Center appointed Jay Simon, Edward C. Chiasson Q.C. and Thomas L. Creel as panelists in this matter on April 4, 2006. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. ...Jay Simon
Presiding Panelist
Thomas L. Creel
Panelist
Edward Chiasson
Panelist
Dated: April 20, 2006...
2006-05-04 - Case Details
BuyThisDomainName (John Pepin) (D2000-0402); Estate of Stanley Getz aka Stan Getz v. Peter Vogel (D2000-0773); Daniel C. Marino, Jr. v. Video Images Productions, et al. (D2000-0598); Isabelle Adjani v. ...David Gilmour, the first Complainant.
Alan L Limbury
Sole Panelist
Dated: December 15, 2000...
2000-12-22 - Case Details
The Response was filed with the Center on February 14, 2019.
The Center appointed Peter J. Dernbach as the sole panelist in this matter on February 21, 2019. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. ...The Respondent is not aware of the Complainant.
l. There is no evidence showing that the Disputed Domain Name used by the Respondent attracts traffic intended for the Complainant’s website, or disrupts the Complainant’s business.
...
2019-03-14 - Case Details
Accordingly,
the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 17, 2003.
The Center appointed Peter BURGSTALLER as the sole panelist in this matter on September 25, 2003. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. ...The Panel therefore orders that the domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Peter Burgstaller
Sole Panelist
Dated: October 8, 2003...
2003-10-17 - Case Details
It differs from the Trade Mark only by the omission of the letter “l” in “line”.
It is well established that “typosquatting” can constitute confusing similarity (Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft v. ...Worshiping, Chrisler, and Chr, aka Dream Media and aka Peter Conover,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1272 and Playboy Enterprises v. Movie Name Company,
WIPO Case No. D2001-1201). ...
2016-11-07 - Case Details
Consolidation of Multiple Complainants
Neither the Policy nor the Rules expressly provide for the consolidation of multiple complainants, and generally read in singular terms of a “complainant” when referring to proceedings under the Policy. See MLB ADVANCED MEDIA, Padres L, The Phillies v. OreNet, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0985. A number of previous WIPO UDRP panels nonetheless have concluded that consolidation of multiple complainants in a single complaint is permissible if the complainants have a truly common grievance against one or more respondents, and it would be equitable and procedurally efficient to do so. ...See Docler IP S.à r.l., DuoDecad IT Services Luxembourg S.à r.l., WebMindLicenses Korlátolt Felelösségü Társaság v. Peter Williams,
WIPO Case No. D2017-0953.
Accordingly, in the absence of any evidence to support a possible basis on which the Respondent may have rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, the Panel accepts the Complainants’ unrebutted prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and concludes that the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2020-07-01 - Case Details
The Parties
The Complainant is Six Continents Hotels, Inc., whose principal place of business is in Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America, and which is represented by Mark L. Seigel, Esq. of Needle & Rosenberg, P.C., Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
The Respondents are Finlaw Agency, C/O Mr. ...The Complaint does contain evidence that Respondent uses the names to assist
consumers in making hotel reservations (Exhibits G, H, I and J to the Complaint),
but that use is not consistent with a "bona fide offering of services or goods"
(a criterion, listed in Paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, which might have otherwise
established Respondent's rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain
names) because this use corresponds exactly to the field of endeavor that Complainant
is in and for which Complainant uses its trademarks. See Peter Frampton v.
Frampton Enterprises, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2002-0141
(April 17, 2002) ("…using the contested domain name…in the exact same
field of endeavor as the Complainant…can not and does not constitute bona fide
commercial use, sufficient to legitimize any rights and interests the Respondent
might have in the contested domain name.")
...
2003-02-21 - Case Details
In the decision
in the case Rosa Montero Gallo v. Galileo Asesores S. L., WIPO
Case No. D2000-1649, the Panel extensively set out the arguments in support
of such doctrine, presenting also a summary of the UDRP and national cases enforcing
this doctrine.
...D2000-0362 (June 19, 2000) § 6A (finding bad faith,
in part, because respondent provided false contact details to Register.com,
Inc.).Wachovia Corporation v. Peter Carrington, WIPO
Case No. D2002-0775.
Because of all of this, the Panel arrives at the conclusion that the Respondent
has registered and used the and
Domain Names in bad faith. ...
2004-02-20 - Case Details
As in many Panels’ view, it
is also beyond the scope of the Policy: TMP Worldwide Inc. v. Jennifer L.
Potter, WIPO Case No. D2000-0536.
The evidence demonstrates that Respondent has legitimate rights or interests
in the disputed domain name. ...Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraph 4(i) of the Policy and Paragraph 15 of the Rules, the Panel directs that the domain name be transferred to Complainant.
Alan L. Limbury
Sole Panelist
Dated: March 9, 2003...
2003-03-20 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
NV Brouwerij L. Huyghe v. Naomi Hendriks
Case No. DNU2007-0003
1. The Parties
The Complainant is NV Brouwerij L. ...In Thrifty, Inc. and Thrifty Rent-A-Car System, Inc. v. Peter George,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0140, the Panel pointed out that “Registration of an ordinary English language word as a domain name, and use of that domain name for that ordinary, English language, non-trademark significance, can be a legitimate interest”. ...
2007-11-13 - Case Details
La Ricorrente è il titolare dei seguenti marchi italiani: No. 950126 BANCA TOSCANA (parola e figurativo) depositato il 10 agosto 2001 e registrato il 21 dicembre 2004 nelle classi internazionali 35, 36 e 42; No. 950125 BANCA TOSCANA (parola e figurativo) depositato il 10 agosto 2001 e registrato il 21 dicembre 2004 nelle classi internazionali 35, 36 e 42; No. 882048 BANCA TOSCANA SELF (parola) depositato l’ 8 luglio 1999 e registrato il 28 gennaio 2003 nelle classi internazionali 16, 35 e 36.
La Resistente ha registrato il dominio < bancatoscana.mobi > il 6 ottobre 2006.
...McCrady,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0429; Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B. v. Peter Ojo,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1770.
Il Collegio ritiene pertanto che la Ricorrente abbia dimostrato quanto richiesto dall’articolo 4(a)(i) della Policy, ossia che il nome a dominio contestato sia identico a un nome sul quale la Ricorrente vanta dei diritti di marchio.
...
2008-03-28 - Case Details
The Complainants similarly submit that the only difference between the trademark CREDIT MUTUEL and the domain name is the addition of the letter “l”.
The domain name has no specific meaning in either French or in English and the misspelling does not add any distinctiveness.
...Worshiping, Chrisler, and Chr, aka Dream Media and aka Peter Conover,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1272 (mark: Chrysler; domain names: crysler, chrisler, chrystier or christler) and Reuters Limited v Global Net 2000, Inc,
WIPO Case No. ...
2007-08-16 - Case Details
The Complainant’s current website identifies the partners in the
Complainant as being Bill Boyes, John Farina, and Peter Matwiczyk. The Panel infers that the Complainant
previously traded as Boyes and Farina and then either changed its name or a new entity was formed when
Mr. ...The Domain Name differs from the GSPRING mark only to
the extent that the Domain Name replaces the ‘I’ with an ‘l’. The visual similarity between the ‘I’ and the ‘l’ –
especially when the font is small – is obvious”.
...
2026-07-03 - Case Details
The Parties
The Complainant is Wollongong City Council, New South Wales, Australia, represented by Mr. Peter Knight of Clayton Utz, Solicitors of Sydney.
Respondent is Viva La Gong, New South Wales, Australia, represented by Mr. ...Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraph 4(i) of the Policy and Paragraph 15 of the Rules, the Panel directs that the domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Alan L. Limbury
Sole Panelist
Dated: April 2, 2003...
2003-04-10 - Case Details
These domain names, such as , , and are used as official websites of the Complainant" (Annex L). "Therefore, the likelihood of confusion between the Respondent’s and the Complainant’s domain names is very high."
The Complainant enclosed as Annex L the print out of the whois registration of as evidence that the Complainant has been using the second level domain "bmwcars" since August 14, 1995, i.e., several years before the Respondent’s registration of on October 2, 2001...
2003-06-16 - Case Details
If so, paragraph 4(c)(iii) may be satisfied (see TMP Worldwide Inc. v. Jennifer L. Potter,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0536).
The Panel prefers the second approach. See the majority decision in Legal & General Group Plc v. ...The fact that Respondent has provided a false address, while not an express ground of bad faith under paragraph 4(b), has been widely recognized by Panels as an indication of bad faith: see Grupo Televisa, S.A., Televisa, S.A. 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; Wachovia Corporation v. Peter Carrington,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0775; Kurtsan Ilaçlari A.S. v. ...
2008-09-17 - Case Details
D2002-0419; Panavision Inc And Panavision International, L P v. Gala Trade Inc,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1533.
The Panel thus concludes that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.
...BargainName.com,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0299; Pfizer Inc. v. Peter Carrington a/k/a Party Night Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0622).
Besides, use of a mark in a domain name to promote the sale of products in competition with the Complainant’s mark products, as the Respondent is doing in the present case, is also constitutive of bad faith (see, e.g., Pfizer Inc. v. ...
2014-01-16 - Case Details
The disputed domain name incorporates that trademark but changes the order of the “a” and the “l” in “calvin”, which constitutes so-called “typosquatting”. The addition of the term “preferred” adds to the confusion because the Complainants have an email subscriber program titled the “Calvin Klein Preferred Program”.
...Therefore, the Panel does not consider this typographical difference capable of dispelling confusing similarity with the Complainant’s trademark. See Wachovia Corporation v. Peter Carrington,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0775; Express Scripts, Inc. v. Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. / Domaindeals, Domain Administrator,
WIPO Case No. ...
2016-10-17 - Case Details
Secondly, the disputed domain name differs from the Complainant’s trademark BHP BILLITON merely by the misspelling of the letter “l” and the letter “i”. In the view of the Panel, the mentioned misspelling does not influence the similar overall impression of the disputed domain name and the trademark as there are only minor differences in the appearance. ...There is ample authority in the previously decided cases that apatternofabusive behaviour following registration in bad faith is by itself indicative of bad faith (see Citigroup, Inc v. Party Night Inc. aka Peter Carrington,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0480 and Match.com, L.P. v. Amjad Kausar,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0510). ...
2018-12-24 - Case Details