Jorgenson Group of Companies, Caso NAF No. FA0907001276264; véase también Bank of America Corporation v. Northwest. Free Community. Access, Caso NAF No. FA0308000180704 (el intento demostrado del demandado de desviar usuarios de Internet que buscan el sitio web del demandante a un sitio web del demandado y para beneficio del demandado no constituye una oferta de productos o servicios de buena fe de conformidad con la Política [UDRP] sección 4(c)(i) y no constituye un uso legítimo justo y no comercial de conformidad con la Política [UDRP] sección 4(c)(iii).). ...
2012-06-12 - Case Details
The relative WhoIs record, provided by the Complainant, indicates that said domain name was created on September 4, 2015.
A bank transfer form produced by the Respondent dated August 4, 2017 indicates that on or about that date Nest Tech purchased the disputed domain name by transferring to the then registrar, Uniregistrar Corp., the sum of USD 150,000, referencing a specific invoice number. ...
2020-07-10 - Case Details
The ZALOPAY service was granted license by the State Bank of Vietnam in January 2016.
The trademarks ZALO are registered in the name of the Complainant for goods and services in Classes 09, 38, 41, and 42, and in a variety of countries under a number of trademark registrations, including, but not limited to, the Vietnamese trademark registration Nos. 217563 and 217564, dated December 31, 2013. ...
2021-09-01 - Case Details
D2005-0585 ( is confusingly similar to the registered SCANIA trademark); Trustmark National Bank v. Henry Tsung;
WIPO Case No. D2004-0274 ( is confusingly similar to the registered Trustmark trademark); Autosales Incorporated, dba Summit Racing Equipment v. ...
2013-01-03 - Case Details
The Respondent further alleges that the Complainant’s USPTO filing, coming within days after receiving no response to its second offer to buy the disputed domain name, is merely part of a scheme by the Complainant to lay the foundation for commencing this proceeding under the Policy, citing Success Bank v. ZootGraphics c/o Ira Zoot, NAF Claim No. 1259918.
Further on the subject of abuse of the proceeding, the Respondent observes that the Complainant in the course of prosecuting its trademark application before the USPTO is required to make a declaration that, to the best of the applicant’s knowledge, no other party is entitled to use the applied-for mark, subject to the penalties for perjury under federal statute. ...
2015-01-30 - Case Details
Although this interpretation of “competitor” from the Mission Kwasizabantu decision has been followed by some, see The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Boris Karpachev
WIPO Case No. D2000-1571, this Panel believes that the view expressed in several other UDRP decisions more consistently supports the UDRP’s plain meaning and the theory behind it. ...
2013-09-11 - Case Details
The Respondent is also the managing director of the company, according to the extract from the Istanbul Chamber of Commerce Data Bank produced by the Complainant.
The Turkish trademark applied for by Kapı Sistemleri in 2003 contains a figurative representation of the STERTIL mark that is identical in almost all respects (excepting the red underline) to the Complainant’s trademark. ...
2014-02-18 - Case Details
D2000-1100; MathForum.co v.Weiguang Huang, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0743 and IndyMac Bank v. F.S.B. v. Jim Kato, FA 190366
(Nat.Arb.Forum). For example, the comments of the panelist in Identigene,
Inc. v. ...
2006-09-04 - Case Details
The procedure in proceedings involving a proxy WHOis service was described
in Ohio Savings Bank v. 1&1 Internet, Inc. and David Rosenbaum, WIPO
Case No. D2006-0881 as follows:
“When such circumstances arise, the Panel understands that the Center’s current practice is typically to require the complainant to amend the complaint – either to name both the privacy service registrant and the party using the privacy service or to simply name the party using the privacy service. ...
2006-11-08 - Case Details
Otherwise, the application becomes void and any subsequent
registration is subject to cancellation. Clorox Co. v. Chemical Bank, 40 U.S.P.Q.2d
1098, 1104-1106 (T.T.A.B. 1996)(holding that the assignment of an intent to
use application and resulting registration were void). ...
2000-04-25 - Case Details
It has been held many times that such a minor change does not militate against a conclusion that two names are confusingly similar.
Thus, in The Toronto Dominion Bank v. Boris Karpachev,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1571, a panel had
no difficulty in deciding that the domain names and
were essentially identical and confusingly similar to
the trademark TD WATERHOUSE, for the former had one letter changed and the latter
had one letter omitted. ...
2005-02-25 - Case Details
Rules, paragraph
3(b)(xi)).
3.4 As required by the Rules and the WIPO Supplemental Rules, payment
in the amount of USD 1,500 by bank draft has been sent with the initial Complaint
on April 12, 2001.
3.5 The Complainant agreed that its claim and remedies concerning the
registration of the domain name, the dispute, or the dispute’s resolution shall
be solely against the domain name holder and waives all such claims and remedies
against (a) the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center and Panelists, except
in the case of deliberate wrongdoing, (b) the concerned registrar, (c) the registry
administrator, (d) the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers,
as well as their directors, officers, employees, and agents.
3.6 A copy of this Complaint, together with the cover sheet as prescribed
by the Supplemental Rules, has been sent or transmitted by the Complainant to
the Respondent on April 10, 2001, by pre-paid courier with return
receipt requested to the address provided by the Respondent as specified above
pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 2(b).
3.7 A copy of this Complaint, has also been sent or transmitted by the
Complainant to the concerned registrar BulkRegister.com, Inc. on April 10, 2001,
by pre-paid courier with return receipt requested to the address provided by
the registrar as set out in Paragraph 9 of the Complaint.
3.8 On April 23, 2001, Respondent received a Notification of Complaint
and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding from the WIPO Arbitration and
Mediation Center (Center) informing the Respondent that an administrative
proceeding had been commenced by Complainant in accordance with the Uniform
Policy for Domain Name Dispute Resolution, adopted by the Internet Corporation
for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) on August 26, 1999, (the Policy),
the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, approved by ICANN
on October 24, 1999, (the Rules) and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Supplemental Rules).
...
2001-06-21 - Case Details
Rules, paragraph
3(b)(xi))
3.4 As required by the Rules and the WIPO Supplemental Rules, payment
in the amount of USD 1,500 by bank draft has been sent with the initial Complaint
on April 12, 2001.
3.5 The Complainant agreed that its claim and remedies concerning the
registration of the domain name, the dispute, or the dispute’s resolution shall
be solely against the domain name holder and waives all such claims and remedies
against (a) the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center and Panelists, except
in the case of deliberate wrongdoing, (b) the concerned registrar, (c) the registry
administrator, (d) the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers,
as well as their directors, officers, employees, and agents.
3.6 A copy of this Complaint, together with the cover sheet as prescribed
by the Supplemental Rules, has been sent or transmitted by the Complainant to
the Respondent on April 10, 2001, by pre-paid courier with return
receipt requested to the address provided by the Respondent as specified above
pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 2(b).
3.7 A copy of this Complaint, has also been sent or transmitted by the
Complainant to the concerned registrar BulkRegister.com, Inc. on April 10, 2001,
by pre-paid courier with return receipt requested to the address provided by
the registrar as set out in Paragraph 9 of the Complaint.
3.8 On April 23, 2001, Respondent received a Notification of Complaint
and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding from the WIPO Arbitration and
Mediation Center (Center) informing the Respondent that an administrative
proceeding had been commenced by Complainant in accordance with the Uniform
Policy for Domain Name Dispute Resolution, adopted by the Internet Corporation
for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) on August 26, 1999, (the Policy),
the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, approved by ICANN
on October 24, 1999, (the Rules) and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Supplemental Rules).
...
2001-06-21 - Case Details
The fact is that when a visitor reaches one of the Respondents’ sites he/she will be directed to the Respondents’ advertisers who range from bank credit cards, to various forms of advertising and adult content websites. There is absolutely no suggestion that its websites are affiliated with any organization, e.g. ...
2001-09-25 - Case Details
Kenny, of Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P., 4850 U.S. Bank Place, 601 Second Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-4320, USA.
The Respondent is Mr. Mark Overbey of 751 Cooper Court East, Aurora, Il 60504, USA.
...
2001-10-30 - Case Details
The Complainant's locks are not the sort of product that a person encounters unless they are personally building a bank doorway, etc. The Respondent singled out the domain name because one partner in the Respondent's company has two years of basic French study. ...
2002-10-02 - Case Details
AF-0096 (March 16, 2000); The
Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Boris Kapachev, WIPO Case No. D2000-1571 (January 15,
2001).
12. See Aurora Foods Inc. v. David Paul
Jaros, WIPO Case No. ...
2002-08-22 - Case Details
Bill Keith, (WIPO
Case No. D2000-0299) and Jeff Davies Bank and Trust Company v. Frank
Small (NAF 157310).
6.11 The Complainant contends that he has won the "race to the market place" and thus established a common law trademark in his name by virtue of the fact that he has for over 30 years had significant secondary meaning attached to his name.
...
2004-03-31 - Case Details
The Panel also agrees with the Complainant’s contention that the addition of the suffix “.com” to the disputed domain name is for Internet registration purposes only, being a requirement of the domain naming system, and does not serve as a distinguishing feature for trademark purposes under the Policy and may, therefore, be disregarded. See The Bank of the Pacific v. Digi Real Estate Foundation,
WIPO Case No. D2006-1112; Columbia Insurance Company v. ...
2008-06-09 - Case Details
Rons Porta Johns,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0952 (August 27, 2007); and Associated Bank Corp. v. Texas International Property Associates,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0334 (June 28, 2007); GoDaddy.com, Inc., v. ...
2008-09-03 - Case Details