Other Panels have expressed their opinion of this subject before, for example: Apple Computer, Inc. v. PrivacyProtect.org / Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0879, where the panel said: “the Complainant provided evidence in an annex to the Complaint that by typing the disputed domain name , the Internet traffic has been redirected to web pages that harvest valuable personal information about users including names and email addresses. ...
2019-03-15 - Case Details
- As of the 1st quarter 2019, TikTok was the most downloaded app on the Apple App Store, with 33 million downloads in a single quarter, exceeding YouTube, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Facebook Messenger...
2020-09-10 - Case Details
The Complaint's Shortcomings
The trademark upon which the complaint is based is a common word in the English language, a word moreover that is frequently used around the world in the trade names of insurance companies and insurance products. “Care” is not a common word, such as “apple” or “orange”, that has taken on distinctiveness in a field unrelated to its everyday meaning. The Complainant makes no allegation that this word has a special meaning in a language other than English.
...
2019-12-16 - Case Details
In support of its extensive reputation and fame of its WHATSAPP mark, Complainant points out that as of February 2016, WhatsApp has over 1 billion monthly active users worldwide, is consistently ranked amongst Apple iTunes 25 most popular free mobile applications, and Complainant’s official website, available at “www.whatsapp.com”, is regularly amongst the Top 100 most visited websites in the world, according to the web information company Alexa.
...
2017-07-05 - Case Details
The mobile application is available for download through the Apple iTunes App Store and Google Play Store. The POPMONEY trade mark is featured on the websites of its clients on which the Complainant’s services are available.
...
2015-11-19 - Case Details
Other domain names that the disputed domain name redirects to advertise Apple iPhone products for sale for $1. Another page displayed at generates click-through advertisements, from which it can be assumed the Respondent would earn click-through revenue.
...
2016-03-07 - Case Details
Factors 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 but not if the site is aimed at selling computers or MP3 players, for example, or an inappropriate other purpose). ...
2016-03-04 - Case Details
Under conventional trademark law principles the term OIL may be distinctively associated with the company incorporation services of an enterprise as an arbitrary type of association (as in “Apple” for smartphones). Respondent might have, but did not, challenge this association, and the Panel does not consider it appropriate to sua sponte challenge the recognition of service mark rights in favor of Complainant by the listed authorities.2
Complainant has registered the word and device service mark OIL and triangle in a number of jurisdictions in connection with various services, including financial services. ...
2017-08-07 - Case Details
The Respondent claims that both MAC and PC are generic terms, as both are commonly used to refer generically to personal computers (although the Respondent does acknowledge that the word MAC designates in particular computers manufactured by Apple Computer, Inc.). Relying on a newspaper report of the decision in a lawsuit involving the Microsoft Corporation, the Respondent argues that the combination of two generic terms cannot form the basis for a valid trademark, and hence that the Complainant has no protected rights that can be vindicated under the Policy.
...
2005-05-12 - Case Details
This conduct constitutes evidence of bad faith use, since the Respondent is
trying to profit from the Complainant’s trademarks reputation, by increasing
the traffic on its website through the mere reproduction of somebody else’s
trademark, this constitutes obvious bad faith use of the domain name in dispute
(Sound Unseen, Ltd.; Apple Bottoms, LLC; and Cornell Haynes p/k/a “Nelly”
v. Patrick Vanderhors, WIPO Case No. D2005-0636).
...
2006-09-27 - Case Details
Secondly, previous panel decisions under the Policy have clearly indicated
that US registration establishes a presumption of validity in US trademark law.
(See for example, The Coryn Group, Inc., Apple Vacations West, Inc. v. John
A. Meara aka Pat Cavanaugh, WIPO Case
No. D2003-0690.) The Respondent might say that it has rebutted that presumption
in its Response. ...
2005-12-01 - Case Details
Indeed, countless common words in the English language can also be used as trademarks (for example: APPLE for personal computers; DELTA for airline services; or AMAZON for online sales services).
The Panel is disturbed by Complainant’s failure to provide any meaningful evidence to support its statement that it owns numerous trademark registrations for the word “skyjack”. ...
2006-12-05 - Case Details
It has not escaped the Panel's notice that a Californian entity named DomainHouse.com, Inc. also features as the respondent in the case of Apple Computer, Inc. v. DomainHouse.com, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0341 in which it described itself as a trader in domain names. ...The Panel notes that the Complainant in the present case asserts that the disputed domain name was being offered for sale by the then registrant for an amount considerably in excess of the registrant's out-of-pocket costs in 1999 and, although the Respondent flatly denies any involvement in this activity, the past history of DomainHouse.com, Inc. as set out in Apple Computer, Inc. v. DomainHouse.com, Inc., supra coupled with the historic screenshot provides a degree of evidential support for the Complainant's contentions. ...
2016-06-23 - Case Details
Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy Service
Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Ben Luis, WIPO Case No. D2021-2910; Apple Computer, Inc.
v.PrivacyProtect.org / PrivateRegistrations Aktien Gesellschaft, WIPO Case No. D2012-0879
Paragraph 4(c)(ii) provides another scenario in which a respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate
interests in a disputed domain name by showing that the respondent is commonly known by the domain
name. ...
2022-09-15 - Case Details
The application has been downloaded by
more than 500 million users in Google Play, and is ranked as “#1 in Entertainment” in the Apple Store.
The Complainant is the owner of the United States trademark TIK TOK with registration No. 5653614,
registered on January 15, 2019 for goods and services in International Classes 9, 38, 41 and 42 (the “TIK
TOK trademark”). ...
2022-12-20 - Case Details
The app is ranked as “#1 in Entertainment” in the Apple Store and “#3 in Social” in Amazon. The Complainant also has a large Internet presence through its primary website . ...
2021-01-13 - Case Details
The generic five colour parking page to which the disputed domain names , and have all resolved is commonly used for the purpose and does little to add to the perception of commonality of control applying to these three disputed domain names.
In Apple, Inc. v. WhoIs Privacy Services Pty Ltd. / Stanley Pace / Shahamat / Kent Mansley / Phoebe Aoe / Tammy Caffey / Staci Michele / Layne Fletcher / Hiroko Tadano / Keith Besterson / Andrew Devon,
WIPO Case No. ...
2021-04-14 - Case Details
The Respondent is Domain Privacy / Tom Hampson of Apple Valley, Minnesota, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with eNom, Inc.
3. ...
2009-07-31 - Case Details
Previous panels have held that, in such cases of pornsquatting: "The inevitable viewer confusion resulting from the re-direction clearly injures the Complainant, tarnishing its marks and damaging its reputation" (Sound Unseen, Ltd.; Apple Bottoms, LLC; and Cornell Haynes p/k/a "Nelly" v. Patrick Vanderhorst,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0636).
...
2011-11-11 - Case Details
D2007-0648, the panel took a diametrically opposed view. The range of views is discussed in Apple Inc. v. Fred Bergstrom, LottaCarlsson, Georges Chaloux and Marina Bianchi,
WIPO Case No. D2011-1388.
...
2012-07-18 - Case Details