The ALBERT EINSTEIN name and mark was licensed by an agent of the University to, inter alia, Apple Computer: Pepsi-Cola and Microsoft.
The respondent asserted that the claim under the Policy was barred by laches on account of the complainant’s failure to raise it until more than five years after the date of registration of the domain name (September 1996). ...
2006-11-10 - Case Details
However, it is no answer to this assertion that the Respondent has never heard of the Complainant, or that YARA is not a consumer brand, like APPLE, LOUIS VUITTON, or JOHNNIE WALKER. YARA may be a very well known mark in the broad agricultural communities in which consumers of the Complainant's products are to be found.
...
2009-03-09 - Case Details
The Complainant provides its services
through its Ola application available for download on platforms such Google PlayStore and Apple App Store.
The Complainant, through its group of companies, is involved in various other sectors of activities, such as
financial services, cloud computing and artificial intelligence.
...
2025-07-28 - Case Details
In precluding the Complainant from accessing to its proprietary rights, the Respondent is using the domain name in bad faith.
Complainant support the finding in Apple Computer, Inc. v. DomainHouse.com, Inc., (WIPO Case No. D2000-0341) where panelist says that [t]here nothing inherently wrongful in the offer or sale of domain names, without more, such as to justify a finding of bad faith under the Policy. ...
2001-03-27 - Case Details
Among the companies that have advertised their products or services on the YAHOO! site are American Express, Apple, Colgate-Palmolive, Disney, The Gap, Honda, IBM, Lego, Microsoft, Procter & Gamble, Sony, Swatch, Toshiba, and Visa...
2000-10-04 - 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). ...
2011-09-19 - Case Details
See, e.g., this Panel’s
prior rulings, though with respect to post-registration challenges to trademark
validity, in: Sound Unseen, Ltd.; Apple Bottoms, LLC; and Cornell Haynes
p/k/a “Nelly” v. Patrick Vanderhorst, WIPO
Case No. D2005-0636 (August 18, 2005); Register.com, Inc. v. ...
2006-05-24 - Case Details
The Respondent also suggests that the allegation that the use of a privacy service was to disguise the Respondent’s identity makes little sense given that the Domain Name was redirected to the Respondent’s website.
5.21 Finally, the Respondent refers to paragraph 2.2 of the WIPO Overview 2.0 which states as follows:
“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). […] Normally, in order to find rights or legitimate interests in a domain name based on the generic or dictionary meaning of a word or phrase contained therein, the domain name would need to be genuinely used or at least demonstrably intended for such use in connection with the relied-upon meaning (and not, for example, to trade off third-party rights in such word or phrase).”
5.22 On the issue of bad faith, the Respondent states that it “relies upon the arguments raised above in connection with “rights and legitimate interests”.
...
2011-11-28 - 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). ...
2012-12-04 - Case Details
The Respondent specifically submits that “tender” cannot be protected for dating services as “apple” cannot be protected for selling fruit.
The Respondent performs hypothetical searches on the “Google” search engine and produces the results which it says may be performed when users enter terms such as “tender” into their browser. ...
2018-05-24 - Case Details
The Respondent notes that the first three results are links to the Apple Store, Play Store and Wikipedia and that the results do not feature sitelinks which the Respondent says are a common trait of strong Internet brands.
...
2018-09-26 - Case Details
The Respondent supports his submission by referring to several other companies such as Apple Inc., Microsoft Corporation or the Registrar in case at hand, Tucows.com Co, stating that all these companies have in common, that the registrant of the respective domain name is indicated in the field “Registrant Organization” and not by the field “Registrant Name” (where the names "Domain Administrator" and “DNS Administrator” are displayed).
...
2015-04-07 - Case Details
Complainant's own neglect does not create an allowable reason for a second bite of the apple, to introduce new evidence or for rebuttal.
3.) While Complainant had nearly eight (8) months from November 2, 2000, the date of the "Clise" conversation until filing was submitted June 11, 2001. ...
2001-09-13 - Case Details
A number of panels have adhered strictly to this wording and concluded that mere preparation for a non-commercial use of the domain name does not satisfy paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy (See Apple Computer, Inc. v. DomainHouse.com, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0341, “the express language of the Policy indicates that its drafters intended to limit the circumstances in which legitimate noncommercial use could successfully be claimed to those circumstances in which a respondent is ‘making’ use.” ...
2006-11-15 - Case Details
It says “Anand Samrat” is an alias of “Kevin Patel” (it says this can be shown based on the Apple App store practice of verifying personal legal names with “Kevin Patel” listed as the seller of the BK Sustenance App on the App Store).
...
2021-11-24 - Case Details
v) The Respondent has used the Domain Name to divert consumers and to tarnish the Complainant's mark (citing Sound Unseen, Ltd.; Apple Bottoms, LLC; and Cornell Haynes p/k/a “Nelly” v. Patrick Vanderhorst,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0636).
...
2009-09-22 - Case Details
D2007-0547, the panel determined that addition of the new domain names would interfere with a respondent’s right to request a three-member panel in place of the sole panel already appointed in the matter. Id., cited in Apple Inc. v. Private Whois Service,
WIPO Case No. D2011-0929 (same result). That procedural right is not at issue in this case since Complainant requested a three-member panel from the outset.
...
2011-11-16 - Case Details
Factors a panel should look for when determining legitimate use would include the status and fame of the mark, whether the respondent has registered other generic names, and what the domain name is used for (a respondent is likely to have a right to a domain name "apple" if it uses it for a site for apples but not if the site is aimed at selling computers or pornography). ...
2011-03-31 - Case Details
…
Nicknames. A geographic nickname (e.g., “Big Apple” or “Motown”), or an abbreviation or other variant of the name of a geographic
location, is treated the same as the actual name of the geographic location, if it is likely to be perceived as such by the purchasing
public”. ...
2025-06-11 - Case Details
The new Complaint is nothing more than the Complainant attempting to have a “second bite at the apple”.
Trademark rights
The Respondent contends that the only distinction between the prior case and this Complaint is the Complainant’s newly acquired trademark registration. ...
2007-12-14 - Case Details