The Respondent began to publish more content after the Complainant filed a complaint with Apple on May 9, 2017 for the Respondent's use of the Trade Mark in the Apple App Store. The Respondent published content on the Respondent's Website in July 2017.
...The Respondent lodged a response to the complaint with Apple, which resulted in the Apple complaint being treated as closed. The Complainant has taken the Apple complaint no further.
...
2018-06-04 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark, because it incorporates the APPLE trademark in its entirety. The mere addition of a descriptive term "account" does nothing to lessen the similarity to the APPLE trademark. ...The Complainant has shown that it has registered the trademark APPLE in a number of jurisdictions, including the United States. The Complainant has therefore established that it has rights to the trademark APPLE.
...
2015-05-26 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediaton Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Apple Inc. v. Hung-Yen Cheng
Case No. D2014-0186
1. The Parties
Complainant is Apple Inc. of Cupertino, California, United States of America (“US”) represented by Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, US.
...This is a classic case of typosquatting. Respondent evidently is aware of the famous APPLE mark, since Respondent’s website features commercial hyperlinks expressly referring to Complainant’s APPLE products. ...
2014-03-28 - Case Details
The fact that the Complainant’s products are used in relation to Apple Inc.’s products, would increase the confusion of Internet users (see cases involving the same Complainant, Incase Designs Corp. v. ...Automotive Parts Solutions,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0725). Here, Apple, Inc. is not a party and there is no evidence before the Panel that Apple, Inc. would consent to the remedy of transfer the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant.
...
2012-11-30 - Case Details
The Complainant owns various word and figurative UNLIMITED VACATION CLUB and APPLE VACATIONS trademark registrations in numerous jurisdictions, including in Panama, where the Respondent appears to be located. According to the Complaint, the Complainant is, inter alia, the registered owner of the Panamanian Trademark Registrations No. 214091 (registered on July 2, 2012) for UNLIMITED VACATION CLUB and No. 215794 (registered on August 22, 2012) for APPLE VACATIONS, covering trademark protection, inter alia, for travel-related services.
The Complainant also owns and operates various domain names that incorporate the UNLIMITED VACATION CLUB and APPLE VACATIONS trademarks, such as and .
...
2020-03-18 - Case Details
Complainant is the owner of several registrations for the SCHWALBE Mark, including without limitation:
International Registration No. 719983 for SCHWALBE registered on May 19, 1999, in classes 9 and 12;
International Registration No. 1117528 for SCHWALBE registered on July 17, 2013 in class 12; and
European Union Trademark Registration No. 011061322 for SCHWALBE registered on December 18, 2012,
in classes 8, 9, and 12.
In addition, Complainant protected the BIG APPLE tire brand as a trademark (the “BIG APPLE Mark”) in
various territories, including without limitation: German Trademark Registration No. 30113553 for BIG
APPLE registered on April 23, 2001, in class 12.
...WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
The addition of other terms here, “big apple” and “bend” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity
between the Disputed Domain Name and the SCHWALBE Mark for the purposes of the Policy.
...
2024-02-01 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
The Coryn Group II, LLC v. Teygan Powell / Apple Leisure Group
Case No. D2020-1151
1. The Parties
1.1 The Complainant is The Coryn Group II, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Norvell IP llc, United States.
1.2 The Respondent is “Teygan Powell”, Canada / Apple Leisure Group, Canada.
2. ...These services include the provision of charter flights and all-inclusive holiday packages to Mexico, the Dominican Republic, and Jamaica.
4.2 The Complainant is the owner of various registered trade marks that comprise the words “Apple Leisure Group”. It is the owner of United States registered trade mark no. 3,522,316 registered on October 21, 2008 for the standard character mark APPLE LEISURE GROUP in classes 39 and 43. ...
2020-07-15 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Apple Inc. v. Domain Admin, Private Whois ipodhack.com, Private Whois iphine.com, Private Whois macbookpros.com
Case No. ...The Complainant contends the disputed domain names and are identical and/or confusingly similar to its APPLE and IPOD trademarks as they fully incorporate one or both of the APPLE and IPOD marks in their entirety. ...
2011-10-21 - Case Details
That the disputed domain name includes the terms “based”, and “macs”, the latter being a well-known and widely used term for Apple Inc.’s computers, which incorporate the Complainant’s products and solutions.
That, on November 10, 2020, Apple Inc., announced the “Next Generation of Mac” computers, powered by a CPU or chip called the “M1” by Apple. That the Apple “M1” CPU utilizes the Complainant’s system on a chip (“SoC”) architecture.
That, two days after the mentioned announcement, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name.
...
2022-03-14 - Case Details
The disputed domain name was registered November 27, 2011, and currently routes to a website promoting the sale of cases apparently specially designed for Apple Inc.’s iPhone.1
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Complainant avers that it was founded in 1997 and is a global leader in the design, development, manufacture and sale of carrying cases and bags for consumer electronics such as Apple Inc.’s products like the iPhone, iPod, iPad and Apple MacBook laptop computer.
...Tudor Burden, Burden Marketing,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0794.
Apple Inc. is not a party to this proceeding. There is no indication in the record that Apple Inc. would consent to the remedy of transfer to Complainant, and indeed, Complainant appears to be disinclined to request Apple Inc.’s authorization. ...
2012-09-25 - Case Details
The disputed domain name was registered on January 20, 2020. It is directed to a web page that mimics an
Apple support site, using the Apple trademark and logo, and displays an alert claiming that the user’s Apple
ID was allegedly used on an adult entertainment website for a “$149.99” charge. ...The evidence filed in support of the Complaint reflects that the disputed domain name is being used in bad
faith. It is directed to a web page that mimics an Apple support site, using the Apple trademark and logo,
and displaying an alert claiming that the user’s Apple ID was allegedly used on an adult entertainment
website for a “$149.99” charge. ...
2026-04-14 - Case Details
D2013-1312
1. The Parties
Complainant is Apple, Inc. of California, United States of America (“US”), represented by Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, US.
...Prior WIPO UDRP decisions have recognized Complainant’s rights in the APPLE mark under the Policy. See, e.g., Apple Inc. v. Algernon Salois,
WIPO Case No. D2011-0413 (“[the] APPLE mark is indeed a famous and well-known trademark… in which the Complainant has rights.”); Apple Computer, Inc. v. ...
2013-10-10 - Case Details
The Respondent makes use of the Complainant’s well-known APPLE silhouette device mark on its websites and claims variously to be the “Best Mac Store” and an “Apple Premium Reseller”.
The Domain Names were registered on various dates in March, May and June 2011, two of them ( and ) having been registered on May 22, 2011, within a week of notification of the decision in Apple Inc. v. Algernon Salois, supra a case involving the domain names, <apple-downloads.com> and <apple-oem.com>. ...
2011-12-29 - Case Details
No obstante lo anterior, de las constancias exhibidas por las Promoventes se desprende que el nombre de dominio ha sido usado en al menos dos direcciones de correos electrónicos, que han sido usados para enviar correos electrónicos a clientes potenciales de las Promoventes y/o Apple Leisure Group, en cuyo contenido se ha incluido información falsa relativa a ofertas de los hoteles promocionados/operados por Apple Leisure Group, presumiblemente con la intención de defraudar a los consumidores.
...Asimismo, el hecho de que las Promoventes hayan exhibido pruebas de las que se desprende que el nombre de dominio en disputa ha sido usado para operar al menos dos direcciones de correos electrónicos, que han sido usadas para enviar comunicados a clientes potenciales de las Promoventes y/o Apple Leisure Group, en cuyo contenido se ha incluido información falsa relativa a ofertas de varios resorts de lujo pertenecientes a Apple Leisure Group y se ha incluido una reproducción idéntica de la marca AMRESORTS, permite que este Experto tenga por acreditada la mala fe del Titular, al crear confusión por asociación a los destinatarios del correo electrónico y hacerles creer que recibían un comunicado de las Promoventes o de Apple Leisure Group, cuando, presumiblemente, su verdadera intención era la de defraudarlos.
...
2020-11-25 - Case Details
Complainant further contends that Language Direct and possibly Respondent have or had similar affiliate arrangements with respect to the Apple Computer website and the , , , , , and domain names, again Language Direct and Respondent appear to have been profiting by redirecting Internet users seeking Complainant’s MacMall.com site (which sells Apple computers and related accessories) to the Apple Computer site. ...To the contrary, Respondent has been using the domain names in dispute to redirect Internet users either to the “www.ecost.com” website of Complainant’s wholly-owned subsidiary, or to the Apple Computer website and thereafter these have been parked free at GoDaddy Software. Finally five of the six domain names in dispute that had previously been used to redirect to the Apple Store website have also been parked at GoDaddy Software. ...
2004-11-05 - Case Details
The Respondent is making a legitimate non-commercial and/or fair use of the disputed domain name in the discussion forum for certain Apple products without intent to mislead or to disrupt the Complainant’s business.
The Respondent contends that it adopted the biological nature of the caterpillars of the codling moth which develop inside an apple to refer to the applications for Apple products.
...The Respondent says it is inevitable that some postings might touch upon the products of the Complainant, and that the following disclaimer has been displayed:
““Apple”, “iMac”, “IPad”, “iPhone”, “iPod”, “Mac”, “Macbook” are trademarks of Apple Inc.
“Cydia” is a trademark of Saurik, LLC.
...
2011-03-08 - Case Details
Centro de Arbitraje y Mediación de la OMPI
DECISIÓN DEL GRUPO DE EXPERTOS
Apple, Inc. v. Patrick Deese
Caso No. DMX2009-0016
1. Las Partes
El Promovente es Apple, Inc. con domicilio en Cupertino, Califorina, Estados Unidos de América, representada por Arochi, Marroquín & Lindner, S.C., México.
...Luego de sus modelos de computadoras portátiles y de escritorio, Apple, Inc. se introdujo al mundo de la música en el año 2001. Con iTunes y su tienda en línea para descargar música legal junto con el iPod, Apple, Inc. ha estado consolidada en la industria de la música digital desde 2001 hasta la fecha.
...
2009-11-17 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant is engaged in the business of designing and manufacturing protective cases and bags for mobile phones, portable computers and other personal electronics such as Apple products, including the iPhone, iPod, iPad and Apple MacBook laptop.
The Complainant first learned about the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name during an audit conducted by the Complainant’s counsel. ...Decision and Remedy
The Panel recognizes that the disputed domain name does not solely incorporate the Complainant’s trademark INCASE but also the trademark IPAD which is registered by a third party, Apple, Inc. In this proceeding, Apple, Inc. is not a party and there is no evidence in the case before the Panel that Apple, Inc. would consent to the remedy of transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant, see Dr. ...
2012-10-08 - Case Details
The Complainant has produced
undisputed evidence that the disputed domain name also redirects to a website that provides a false warning
to visitors: “Your iPhone has been locked due to illegal activity. Your Apple Account has been disabled!”.
This website then instructs visitors to “call Apple Support” at a displayed telephone number in order to
“unlock” their iPhone devices.
5. ...Furthermore, the use of the disputed domain name in connection with a
tech support scam that falsely informs visitors that their “iPhone has been locked due to illegal activity,” that
their “Apple Account has been disabled,” and that they should “call Apple Support” at a displayed telephone
number (which is not associated with Apple) “to unlock it”, cannot be observed as a use in connection with a
bona fide offering of goods or services. ...
2024-07-29 - Case Details
Due to the presence of the trademark IPHONE in the Disputed Domain Names, Complainant has obtained a letter of authorization from Apple Inc. (the owner of the IPHONE trademark) to obtain transfer of the Disputed Domain Names if ordered in this proceeding. ...As noted above, the likelihood of confusing association is especially true in the instant case because Complainant is known to carry Apple Inc.’s iPhone in its stores and through its websites.
Therefore, this Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the VERIZON or VZW marks.
...
2012-04-13 - Case Details