Since its launch
in the Google Play Store, more than 1 billion users have downloaded the TIKTOK application. In the Apple
App Store, the TIKTOK app is ranked “#1 in Entertainment” and #1 among all categories of free iPad apps.
...
2023-08-29 - Case Details
The disputed domain name resolves to a webpage with links to download mobile phone applications from
the Google Play and Apple App stores which appear to offer ride hailing and taxi services in Viet Nam.
According to the Response, the Respondent has been providing laundry, communication, car booking, and
ticketing services for customers in Viet Nam since 2018.
...
2023-05-24 - Case Details
As of March 2023, there had been 38 million downloads of the Complainant’s
game from the Apple App Store and 160 million downloads of it from the Google Play.
The Complainant has protected its rights in SNAKE.IO by way of trade mark registrations. ...
2023-05-22 - Case Details
The Instagram app has been the recipient of numerous awards,
including “App of the Year” in 2011 from Apple Inc. The Instagram app is currently the second most
downloaded app worldwide, according to Forbes.
...
2023-05-03 - Case Details
Factual Background
The Complainant is the intellectual property owner for the Apple Leisure Group, operating in the field of
travel, hospitality, and leisure management, and owning several trademark registrations for AMR and AMR
COLLECTION, among which:
- International Trademark Registration No. 1604829 for AMR COLLECTION, registered on April 19,
2021, also extended to Mexico.
...
2023-06-28 - Case Details
With over two billion monthly active users worldwide in 2023, WhatsApp has garnered
significant reputation and is consistently ranked among the top 25 most popular free mobile applications on
Google Play and Apple iTunes. Additionally, according to Data.ai (formerly App Annie), WhatsApp is the first
most downloaded application for iOS phones worldwide.
...
2024-06-12 - Case Details
Launched in the United States in September 2022 and accessible for free through its official website and
mobile applications downloadable through the Apple App Store and Google Play Store, by the end of the
fourth quarter of 2022, the Complainant’s TEMU application quickly became one of the most downloaded e-
commerce applications.
...
2024-09-27 - Case Details
Since then, several versions of the
3DMARK software have been released, and it is available on both the Apple and Google app stores, with
over 5 million downloads to date.
Due to its continued use of the 3DMARK trademark in connection with computer software, the Complainant
asserts its exceptionally strong common law rights in the 3DMARK mark. ...
2024-10-30 - Case Details
In such instances, those users would not be exposed to a respondent’s pornographic content but for that linkage” (Sound Unseen, Ltd; Apple Bottoms, LLC; and Cornell Haynes p/k/a “Nelly” v. Patrick Vanderhorst,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0636).
...
2020-11-13 - Case Details
The Complainant holds Registration No. 78642886 for a device version of the EX DRINKS trademark in the United States of America (“United States”), which it uses to designate “Aerated fruit juices, Aerated water, Apple juice beverages, Colas being soft drinks, Drinking water, Energy drinks, Flavored waters, Fruit flavored soft drinks, Fruit-flavored beverages, Fruit-flavored drinks, Glacial water, Guarana drinks, Herbal juices, Isotonic drinks, Mineral water, Non-alcoholic beverages, namely, carbonated beverages, Non-alcoholic beverages containing fruit juices, Non-alcoholic fruit juice beverages, Pop being a soft drink, Sports drinks, Soft drinks, namely, carbonated soft drinks, low calorie soft drinks, and non-carbonated soft drinks” in class 32. ...
2013-03-28 - Case Details
Fundacion Private Whois, Domain Administrator,
WIPO Case No. D2013-1427; Apple Inc. v. Stanley Pace (a.k.a. Jordan Smith, Chris Carter, sunhei.org, Keith Besterson, Shahamat, Staci Michele and Courtney Culbertson) and Fundacion Private Whois,
WIPO Case No. ...
2013-11-05 - Case Details
The WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 2.2 goes on to clarify that factors that "a panel tends to look for when assessing whether there may be rights or legitimate interests would include the status and fame of the trademark, whether the respondent has registered other domain names containing dictionary words or phrases, and whether the domain name is used in connection with a purpose relating to its generic or descriptive meaning (e.g., a respondent may well have a right to a domain name "apple" if it uses it for a genuine site for apples…". In this instant case, the Respondent claims that the disputed domain name is a name for a geographic area but he does not use the disputed domain name in any way that could be said to be related to the geographical area.
...
2017-03-24 - Case Details
As such, the Panel finds that the Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to other online locations, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s TATA mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s site within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy (see Apple Inc. v. Domain Privacy Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0620).
The third requirement of the Policy has been fulfilled.
7. ...
2016-06-28 - Case Details
The email also listed numerous other TLDs and gTLDs Respondent was offering for sale which included the brands HBO; Warner Bros.; Apple; and 20th Century Fox.
The emails summarised in this and the preceding paragraph were annexed to a First Supplemental filing by Complainant dated February 19, 2016.
4.C.5 In a second Supplemental filing dated February 26, 2016 Complainant drew attention to Respondent’s email dated February 25, 2016 addressed to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Dealer, H.R.Owen, offering to sell for USD 40,000 the domain name . ...
2016-04-04 - Case Details
Other panels have denied consolidation as potentially detrimental to the respondent’s rights, e.g., Apple Inc. v. Private Whois Service,
WIPO Case No. D2011-0929; Department of Management Services, State of Florida v. ...
2016-04-20 - Case Details
In 1999, Complainant carried advertisements from more than 3,500 companies, including American Express, Apple, Colgate-Palmolive, Disney, The Gap, Honda, IBM, Lego, Microsoft, Procter & Gamble, Sony, and others.
4.5 In 1999, Complainant's revenues were in excess of US$588 million.
4.6 The price one can command for advertising placed on the World Wide Web depends on "hits" and/or "page views." ...
2000-08-11 - Case Details
Accordingly, a respondent would probably have problems in convincing a panel that he would have a legitimate interest in the generic domain name compared to the famous character of the Apple-trademark of the respective computer company, except possibly in certain circumstances where the generic word describes respondent’s bona fide business or is being used in its dictionary sense.
...
2005-07-20 - Case Details
However, marks consisting of common words may acquire secondary meaning. Words such as APPLE and ORANGE or phrases such as EL CORTE INGLES (“the English tailor”), to name but a few, are good examples. ...
2006-09-22 - Case Details
Previous panel
decisions have indicated that such registration establishes a presumption of
validity in U.S. trademark law. (The Coryn Group, Inc., Apple Vacations West,
Inc. v. John A. Meara aka Pat Cavanaugh, WIPO
Case No. D2003-0690.) The Respondent has not submitted any evidence to rebut
these presumptions of validity.
...
2005-10-17 - Case Details
According to the Complainant, it serves more than 40,000 corporate customers in 60 countries, and also partners with well known industry leaders such as HP, Intel, NEC, IBM, Apple, PeopleSoft, SAP and Sun.
The Complainant obtained federal registration of it SQL ANYWHERE mark on October 5, 1999, but has used the mark in commerce since December 1995, continuously denoting such use with a superscripted ™ designation prior to the issuance of the federal registration for the mark. ...
2006-05-05 - Case Details