Given the fame and reputation of the SWAROVSKI Marks, there is little doubt that the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name was a deliberate attempt to confuse consumers by “typo-squatting”. See e.g. Wachovia Corporation v. Peter Carrington,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0775 (“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”).
...The Respondent’s previous use of the disputed domain name to sell goods similar to and purporting to be those produced and sold by the Complainant can be taken into consideration by the panel in determining bona fide or legitimate use. In E. Gluck Corporation v. James L. Clark d/b/a Animationwerks,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1651 (“E. Gluck”), the panel found that the respondent’s prior use of the disputed domain name was not bona fide and, therefore, there was no legitimate interest. ...
2012-03-06 - Case Details
It
says that if the dictionary word “software” is ignored, the dominant part of the Disputed Domain Name is the
term “sibyll” which it says is similar to the mark SIEBEL each being a six letter word commencing with “si”
and ending with “l” with a “b” in the middle. It also says “sibyl” and “siebel” are pronounced almost
identically. ...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 vs. 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.
...
2023-08-18 - Case Details
Transliner Consultants,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1359; National Football League v. Peter Blucher d/b/a BluTech Tickets,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1064; Toilets.com, Inc. v. Rons Porta Johns,
WIPO Case No. ...D2001-0446; E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company v. 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. ...
2015-07-22 - Case Details
E.g., 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.
The fact that Complainants' trademark rights may not have arisen until after Respondent registered the disputed domain name does not prevent the Panel from finding confusing or substantial similarity.3
Removing the “.com” suffix from the disputed domain name, as panels routinely do when analyzing confusing similarity,4 the Panel agrees with Complainants' contention that the phonetic pronunciation of “gamebukers” is nearly identical and confusingly similar to the sound of Complainants' GAMEBOOKERS mark. ...Using a domain name to intentionally attract Internet users, for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use. Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv). See, e.g., L´Oréal, Biotherm, Lancôme Parfums et Beauté & Cie v. Unasi, Inc,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0623. Panels may draw inferences about bad faith registration or use in light of the circumstances. ...
2008-11-20 - Case Details
See also a WIPO UDRP decision involving the Complainant La Française des Jeux v. Mark L Virgi,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0283 where the panel stated that “this is a case of typosquatting where the domain name is a slight alphabetical variation of a mark which is widely known, at least among the French speaking public, which adds to a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant's trademark. ...D2000-0429 “the specific top level of the domain name such as ‘.net' or ‘.com' does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar”; Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B. v. Peter Ojo,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1770 “the accused domain name is legally identical to Complainant's trade name CHEVY CHASE BANK”).
...
2009-01-28 - Case Details
On November 14, 2006, the Center appointed Grant L. Kim as the sole panelist in this matter. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, Paragraph 7.
...Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraph 4(i) of the Policy and Paragraph 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.
Grant L. Kim
Sole Panelist
Dated: December 30, 2006...
2007-01-11 - Case Details
Enfin, quant à la bonne ou mauvaise foi, l’Investissement lyonnais fait d’abord valoir que, pour lui, la marque du requérant n’a pas de caractère notoire et, mettant l’accent sur ce qu’il juge être une faible diffusion du journal baptisé Appel Immo, déclare avoir ignoré l’existence de cette publication au moment où il enregistrait les noms litigieux. La non-utilisation est expliquée par l’« opération Tracimmo » évoquée plus haut. L’Investissement lyonnais soutient en outre que les deux entreprises ne sont pas concurrentes, lui seul relevant du secteur des agences immobilières. ...Sivaramakrishan
Litige OMPI n° D2001-0615 ; ou
récemment Viacom International Inc. v. MTVALBUMS – Mega Top Video
Albums / Peter Mladshi Litige OMPI n° D2002-0196).
Elle se doit encore de relever que les décisions n’hésitent pas
à s’attacher à l’élément « dominant »
(voir Nokia Corporation v. ...
2002-07-12 - Case Details
Registration and use in bad faith
(k) There is little here upon the basis of which the Panel may conclude that the Respondents have registered the Domain Name in order to prevent the Complainant from reflecting the Trademark in a corresponding domain name, but it is not necessary to make any finding in this regard because there is simply no evidence whatsoever provided by the Complainant that there is a "pattern of such conduct", which is the proviso for a finding under this paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the UDRP.
(l) Similarly, there is absolutely no evidence that the Respondents have "intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users" to any website in the words of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP. ...Accordingly, the Panel determines in accordance with paragraph 15 of the Rules that the Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant, Expedia, Inc., in accordance with paragraph 4(i) of the UDRP.
William Peter Knight
Sole Panelist
Dated: February 20, 2002...
2002-02-25 - Case Details
D2014-0618 ; Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v.
WhoisGuard Protected / Peter D. Person, Litige OMPI No. D2014-1447). Par conséquent, l’enregistrement
et l’utilisation de ce nom de domaine litigieux sont présumés avoir eu lieu de mauvaise foi (Synthèse de
l’OMPI, version 3.0, section 3.1.4). ...Le Requérant soutient également que le Défendeur reproduit ses marques “sans aucune licence ou autorisation”, et que des recherches en ligne avec des paramètres de géolocalisation en Côte d’Ivoire ne montrent pas d’ayant-droit autre que le Requérant l...
Enfin, le Requérant avance de nombreux éléments attestant de la réputation de ses marques CARREFOUR. ...
2022-03-29 - Case Details
Mathieu Laroussi, Gucciowner; Tok
Pi; Eiki Stone village; Dominique Lacroix; Daniel Liao; Chengwei Hong, Guccidubai; Jingjia Ji, Gucci;
Ba Dan Wang; Hua Wang; Huaiwei Zhang; Ke Ke Zhou; Manami Murakami; Peter Green; Sara Lee;
SDFDS DSFS; Siciyuan Luo; Wang Zhang; \u6d25\u5609\u5c71 \u5f18\u6a39 [津嘉山 弘樹], WIPO Case
No. ...In the case at hand, the Complainant’s trademark FOSSIL is entirely reproduced in the disputed domain
names, with the mere addition of the term “philippines” in two disputed domain names and an obvious
misspelling of the word “philippines” in the disputed domain name – where the last “i”
was deliberately substituted by a “l” – and the generic Top-Level Domains “.com” and “top”, which are
commonly disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test (section 1.11 of the WIPO Overview
3.0).
...
2022-10-20 - Case Details
The Parties
The Complainant is Tinder, Inc. of Dallas, Texas, United States of America, represented by D L LEGAL, LLP, United States of America.
The Respondent is Emil A. Halilov of Bransk, Bryanskaya oblast, Russian Federation.
2. ...In such cases, even where the Respondent did use the domain name to provide goods or services to consumers, UDRP panels have found that such use is not "legitimate" (Peter Frampton v. Frampton Enterprises, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0141). Thus, the Respondent's use of the disputed domain name has been primarily to misappropriate the goodwill of the Complainant and to falsely and deceivingly suggest that the Respondent is connected or associated with, or endorsed by the Complainant (Neteller plc v. ...
2017-07-12 - Case Details
A copy of the home page for Kodak’s Taiwanese website dated September 25, 2003, has been offered as evidence as Exhibit L.
Ofoto Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Kodak which has its principal place of business in California, United States of America. ...D2000-0090; Microsoft Corp. v. Party Night, Inc. d/b/a Peter
Carrington, WIPO Case No. D2003-0501.
Complainant represents that the Respondent has used the Domain Name in dispute
in obvious bad faith. ...
2003-12-05 - Case Details
Although the "www.bunneyranch.com" website is thus registered under the name of a different owner than the "www. accessaltanta.com" website, a WHOIS search indicates that the words "Mars Attack" occur in the administrative e-mail (666666@marsattack.com) of the owner of the "www.accessaltanta.com" website (Peter Carrington). Further, the Panel noticed that a link with the "www.yes-yes-yes.com" website still exists, since, when clicking the "BACK" button from the "www.bunneyranch.com" website, the URL "www.yes-yes-yes.com/" appears for a few seconds in the lower left-hand corner of the screen.
...The domain name is identical to Complainant’s Mark, except that (1) the domain name adds the generic top level domain name ".com," (2) the domain name employs lower case letters, while the trademark is generally used with capital letters, and (3) the domain name inverts the "l" and the "t."
The addition of the generic top-level domain name (gTLD) ".com" is without legal significance from the standpoint of comparing to ACCESS ATLANTA® since use of a gTLD is required of domain name registrants, ".com" is one of only several such gTLDs, and ".com" does not serve to identify a specific enterprise as a source of goods or services. ...
2002-08-21 - Case Details
Towns
Sole Panelist
Dated: April 3, 2007
1 The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) registered COVANTA ENERGY on March 20, 2004.
2 Refer to WIPO
Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, para.
2.5.
3 This view has been
more prevalent in criticism site cases outside the United States. See, e.g.,
The Laurel Pub Company Limited v. Peter Robertson / Turfdata, WIPO
Case No. DTV2004-0007; Triodos Bank NV v. Ashley Dobbs, WIPO
Case No. ...Technology Associates, WIPO
Case No. D2003-0024; TMP Worldwide Inc. v. Jennifer L. Potter, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0536; Bridgestone Firestone, Inc. v. Myers, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0190. ...
2007-04-23 - Case Details
D2004-0201; Virgin Enterprises Limited v. Steve Peter H S Kok and James Tan,
WIPO Case No. DCC2002-0001.
Based on the methods employed to provide the Respondent with notice of the Complaint, and in the light of the Respondent's obligation under the registration agreement to maintain accurate and current contact information, the Panel is satisfied that the Center took all steps reasonably necessary to notify the Respondent of the Complaint, and that the failure of the Respondent to furnish a Response is not due to any omission by the Center. ...D2000-1449 (the domain name differs from the mark merely by the addition of the letter “l” in the domain name, and such addition does not prevent the domain name from being considered virtually identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark); Alta Vista Co. v. ...
2008-12-29 - Case Details
The Parties
1.1 The Complainants are Truworths limited, Truworths Intellectual Property Limited and WSM Operations.
1.2 The first Complainant is a public company duly incorporated through the laws of the Republic of South Africa with its principal place of business situated at SRG House, I Mostert Street, Cape Town, Republic of South Africa.
1.3 The second Complainant is an Isle of Man company with its principal place of business situated at Derby House, Athol Street, Douglas, Isle of Man.
1.4 The third Complainant is a Nevis Leeward Island company with its principal place of business situated at New Street, St. Peter Port, Guernsey Channel Island.
1.5 The three Complainants have their address for service as P.O. ...A true and correct copy of the Respondent’s letter was presented as Annex "L".
5. Relevant Provisions and the Uniform Policy
5.1 Paragraph 4(a) of the Uniform Policy sets out the three elements which must be present for a proceeding to be brought against the Respondent, and which the Complainant must prove to obtain a remedy. ...
2001-08-21 - Case Details
In data 27 dicembre 2016, la Ricorrente ha inviato una lettera di diffida alla Resistente, nella quale ha richiesto la modifica del sito ed il trasferimento del nome a dominio contestato, citando i marchi dell’Unione Europea n. 013135462 per RIVER (figurativo) e n. 013135322 per RIVER (denominativo), registrati in capo alla Ricorrente l’11 dicembre 2014 per prodotti nelle classi 7 (“Incubatrici per uova; Pompe per l'industria alimentare [macchine]”), 11 (“Apparecchi di illuminazione, di riscaldamento, di produzione di vapore, di ventilazione, di distribuzione d'acqua”) e 21 (“Abbeveratoi per animali; Mangiatoie per animali; Articoli per animali”).
...Chris McCrady,
Caso OMPI No. D2000-0429; Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B. v. Peter Ojo,
Caso OMPI No. D2000-1770; e Consorzio del Prosciutto di Parma v. Site Internet Solutions / Fausto Cocchi,
Caso OMPI No. ...
2017-06-06 - Case Details
The Parties
Complainant is Hipercard Banco Múltiplo S.A. of Boa Viagem, Recife, Brazil, represented by L. J. Bray & Co., Brazil.
Respondents are Private Registration (B3) of Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands, Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Telecom Tech Corp. of Panama City, Republic of Panama.
2. ...D2000-0429 (“the specific top level of the domain name such as ‘.net’ or ‘.com’ does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar”) and Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B. v. Peter Ojo,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1770 (“the accused domain name is legally identical to Complainant’s trade name CHEVY CHASE BANK”).
...
2010-10-14 - Case Details
Technology Associates,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0024; TMP Worldwide
Inc. v. Jennifer L. Potter, WIPO Case
No. D2000-0536; Bridgestone Firestone, Inc. v. Myers, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0190. This view is not representative of the consensus of
opinion in criticism site cases outside the United States, which appears to
be that a respondent has no right to use a domain name identical or confusingly
similar to the complainant’s mark for purposes of criticism. See, e.g.,
The Laurel Pub Company Limited v. Peter Robertson / Turfdata, WIPO
Case No. DTV2004-0007; Triodos Bank NV v. Ashley Dobbs, WIPO
Case No. ...
2006-05-25 - Case Details
Registration of such domain names are known as “typo-piracy” or “typo-squatting” (see Hobsons, Inc. v. Peter Carrington a/k/a/ Party Night Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0317). The addition of generic or descriptive terms does not distinguish Respondent’s domain names from Complainants’ trademarks (see SFX Motor Sports, Inc. v. ...Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainant must establish rights in a trademark and secondly prove that the domain names in dispute are confusingly similar to the trademarks in which Complainants have rights.
Complainant Madison Square Garden L. P. is the owner of the trademark MADISON SQUARE GARDEN registered in the United States as Registration No. 835,284 on September 12, 1967, for “operation of a sport entertainment, convention and exhibition arena…”. ...
2007-08-21 - Case Details