WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Doha Bank (Q.S.C.) v. Olga Pererva
Case No. D2016-1508
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Doha Bank (Q.S.C.) of Doha, Qatar, represented by The GigaLaw Firm, Douglas M. ...Factual Background
The Complainant was incorporated as Doha Bank in 1978 and has traded under the name Doha Bank since March 15, 1979. It provides domestic and international banking services. ...
2016-09-13 - Case Details
The Complainant also contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trade mark NATIONAL BANK OF ARIZONA. It is included and recognizable in the Domain Name in the form of the “nb” being the abbreviated version of “national bank” plus “arizona”.
...Given the fact that the Panel accepts that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the BANK OF ARIZONA trade mark and the BANK OF ARIZONA trade mark was filed prior to the registration of the Domain Name, the Panel accepts that the Respondent must have known about the BANK OF ARIZONA trade mark. ...
2017-02-24 - Case Details
ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Bank Frick AG v. Supp Work
Case No. DCC2024-0035
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Bank Frick AG, Liechtenstein, represented by LHR Rechtsanwälte Lampmann
Haberkamm Rosenbaum & Partner mbB, Germany.
...That being the case, the Complainant finds that the disputed domain name is used to mislead its potential clients exploiting BANK...
According to the Complainant, it has prior rights over the trademark BANK FRICK and has not authorized the registration and use of the disputed domain name.
...
2025-01-22 - Case Details
The word “bank” is a generic term that describes the activities of Complainant.
Complainant cites Bank of America v. ...See also Bank of America v. Vox Consult, NAF Case No. FA102492, The Bank of Nova Soctia v. Whois Protection, supra, Royal Bank of Canada v. ...
2008-01-25 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Signature Bank v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1246989552 / Win Aks
Case No. D2020-3545
1. The Parties
Complainant is Signature Bank, United States of America (“United States” or “US”), represented by CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB, Sweden.
...Factual Background
Complainant states in its Complaint and provides evidence in the respective annexes sufficient to support that Complainant is a New York-based full-service commercial bank operating under the trademark SIGNATURE BANK (the “SIGNATURE BANK Mark”) with 31 private client offices throughout the New York metropolitan area. ...
2021-03-23 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Deutsche Bank AG v. Childrenpulse/ Mr. Pranav Prakash
Case No. D2012-2028
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Deutsche Bank AG of Mumbai, India, represented by M/s. ...Complainant
The Complainant asserts that it is the exclusive owner and proprietor of all the trademarks viz. DEUTSCHE BANK, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, logo of a square with a slash inside it and DEUTSCHE BANK with square logo. It had adopted the name “Deutsche Bank” as a part of its corporate name in the year 1974. ...
2012-12-21 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Ulster Bank Limited v. Amy Dee
Case No. D2013-2168
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Ulster Bank Limited of Belfast, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.
...Complainant
Likelihood of Confusion
The ULSTER BANK trademark is in possession of substantial inherent and acquired distinctiveness. The awareness of the ULSTER BANK trademark is considered in large parts of the European Union to be significant.
...
2014-02-27 - Case Details
The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names <bank-belfius.info>, <bank-belfius.live>, <bank-belfius.site>, , , , , , and are registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...When one attempts to access the disputed domain names <bank-belfius.site>, <bank-belfius.live>, and <bank-belfius.info>, the Internet browser displays security warnings for illicit activities. ...
2021-11-15 - Case Details
Complainant also informs that Respondent has never been known under the wordings “targobank” or ”targo bank” or ”targobank-de” and has no trademarks rights on these wordings once that the four existing TARGO BANK trademarks are registered under Complainant’s name.
...Complainant also argues that the notoriety of the TARGO BANK trademarks has been confirmed by a previous UDRP decision.
Complainant informs that although Respondent is located in United States and Panama, where the TARGO BANK trademarks may be less known, it notes the use of a privacy protection service which function is to hide some real registrant. ...
2011-05-26 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Sainsbury’s Bank Plc Company v. Owen Webster
Case No. D2007-1246
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Sainsbury’s Bank Plc Company, London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by HBOS Plc, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
...TRADEMARK REG. No DATE OF REG. CLASSESS
UK
Sainsbury’s Bank (word) 2115610 November 21, 1997 9, 16, 35, 36
38 and 41
Sainsbury’s Bank
Drive (word) 2220033 July 28, 2000 16 and 36
Sainsbury’s Bank (Stylised) 2221913 November 24, 2000 9, 16, 35,
36, 38 and 41
Sainsbury’s Bank
Merit Card (word) 2167263 March 26, 1999 9, 16 and 36
COMMUNITY
Sainbury’s Bank 000534925 October 13, 1999 9, 16, 35,
36, 38 and 41
The disputed domain name was registered on September 22, 2006.
5. ...
2007-11-05 - Case Details
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the registered owner of the ALLY BANK and ALLY trademarks and clearly has rights for
the purposes of the Policy.
Ignoring the gTLD “.com” (as the Panel may do for comparison purposes), the Domain Name incorporates
the ALLY BANK trademark in its entirety but adds the letter “s” between “ally” and “bank”. The Domain
Name also incorporates the ALLY trademark, adding the letter “s” and the word “bank”. The ALLY BANK
and ALLY trademarks, and Domain Name are therefore not identical and thus the issue of confusing
similarity must be considered. ...
2022-03-30 - Case Details
G1074075 for ALLY BANK registered on March 28, 2011 in class 36.
The Complainant owns several domain names incorporating the ALLY and ALLY BANK marks, including and .
...Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s ALLY BANK mark because the disputed domain name incorporates the trademark ALLY BANK in full. The Complainant’s ALLY BANK mark is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name. ...
2020-10-08 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, National Westminster Bank plc A/K/A NatWest Bank v. Personal and Pedro Lopez
Case No. ...Complainants
The Complainants indicate that National Westminster Bank (A/K/A NatWest Bank) is a fully-owned subsidiary of the Royal Bank of Scotland Group, which in March 2000, completed the acquisition of NatWest Bank. ...
2003-05-20 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Riyad Bank v. J. Boschert
Case No. D2001-0820
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Riyad Bank, a Saudi Arabian corporation of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. ...Respondent’s website is to be dedicated to stories about Riyad Bank, opinions from clients and employees of Riyad Bank, and suggestions for Riyad Bank. Respondent’s website is currently undergoing renovations and further development. ...
2001-08-29 - Case Details
It states that the Complainant is not a bank, is not operated as a bank, does not have a banking
licence, and that “bitpandabank” is not a trademark of the Complainant.
The Respondent states that the term “Panda Bank” has an established meaning, namely “Cash Coin
Cartoon Money Saver”, and a long history. It provides a link to a YouTube video headed “Homemade Panda
Bank”, which portrays a moving plastic panda feature on top of a money-box. ...
2022-08-01 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Triodos Bank NV v. Ashley Dobbs
Case No. D2002-0776
1. The Parties
Complainant in this administrative proceeding is Triodos Bank NV of Bristol, United Kingdom ("Complainant").
...It is not clear from the exhibits to the Complaint whether any of those registrations are for the words TRIODOS BANK alone. Nonetheless, the Complainant is a bank, it is the owner of a UK trade mark registration for TRIODOS (word) and there is no dispute between the parties that the Complainant has carried on trade as a bank in the United Kingdom under the name TRIODOS BANK.
...
2002-10-16 - Case Details
Domaincar c/o Perthshire Marketing a/k/a Domaincar, NAF Claim No. 671079; The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc and The Royal Bank of Scotland International Limited v. Yorgi Brawn, NAF Claim No. 787945; The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc v. ...Jim Bowen, NAF Claim No. 1045991; The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc v. Ramzi Takch, NAF Claim No. 1106036; The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc v. ...
2012-06-07 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
ZB, N.A dba Zions First National Bank v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc / Mark Global, Zion Bank Ltd
Case No. D2017-2159
1. The Parties
The Complainant is ZB, N.A dba Zions First National Bank of Salt Lake City, Utah, United States of America (“United States”), represented by TechLaw Ventures, PLLC, United States.
...The disputed domain name resolves to a website that displays marks that are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered marks and includes terms, such as “risk-free” and “bank deposit,” which are common to banking and lending services. Through the use of the disputed domain name and by displaying trademarks that include the term “bank” the Respondent is expressly stating that it is a bank and provides banking services. ...
2018-01-22 - Case Details
SVB & Design
9286964
European Union
SVB FINANCIAL GROUP
9286981
European Union
SVB SILICON VALLEY BANK
11708997
European Union
SVB & Design
11709474
European Union
SVB SILICON VALLEY BANK MAKE NEXT HAPPEN NOW
13774278
European Union
SVB SILICON VALLEY BANK
16757007
European Union
SVB SILICON VALLEY BANK
16771925
European Union
SVB SILICON VALLEY BANK
3232945
U.K.
SVB SILICON VALLEY BANK
3233495
U.K.
SVB
2554730
U.K.
SVB FINANCIAL GROUP
2554729
U.K.
SVB SILICON VALLEY BANK
304153833
Hong Kong, China
SVB SILICON VALLEY BANK & Design
304150539
Hong Kong, China
SVB SILICON VALLEY BANK
302863765
Hong Kong, China
SVB
302863792
Hong Kong, China
SVB
1794777
Australia
SVB
1794557
Australia
SVB SILICON VALLEY BANK
12411058
China
SVB SILICON VALLEY BANK
16442161
China
SVB SILICON VALLEY BANK
16442160
China
SVB SILICON VALLEY BANK
12411471
China
SVB
12411151
China
SVB
12411386
China
SVB
232432
Israel
SVB SILICON VALLEY BANK MAKE NEXT HAPPEN NOW
272790
Israel
SVB
255093
Israel
SVB SILICON VALLEY BANK
255092
Israel
SVB FINANCIAL GROUP
232429
Israel
SVB FINANCIAL GROUP
232430
Israel
SVB
232431
Israel
The Respondent registered the domain names and on July 10, 2017 and December 1, 2017, respectively. ...
2018-05-02 - Case Details
Here, it is uncontroverted that the Complainant has established rights in the HELM BANK USA Mark based on its federally registered trademarks for the HELM BANK USA Mark and its several years of use of this mark.
The Disputed Domain Name consists of a variation of the HELM BANK USA Mark, i.e., with the use of the word “banking” instead of “bank”, and followed by the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. ...
2019-11-01 - Case Details