About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

Full Text Search on WIPO Panel Decisions

Found 57807   document(s)s (0.045 sec)

Rows

<<  <  43141 - 43160  >  >>

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2013-2163 for bradescos.com html (10 KB)

Complainant The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark BRADESCO because the wording is nearly identical. The addition of an extra “s” at the end is not sufficient to avoid such confusion. ...Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark BRADESCO. ...

2014-01-31 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2013-1928 for busasurgical.com html (11 KB)

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the Complainants own registered trademark rights in the trademark BUSA by virtue of Community Trademark Registration No. 1019881 BUSA and Swiss Trademark Registration No. 644881 BUSA. The Panel further finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the Complainants’ registered trademark BUSA. The disputed domain name contains as a first and dominant element the Complainants’ trademark BUSA, which is a unique and coined word, combined with the descriptive word “surgical”, which relates to the products manufactured and sold by both the Complainants and the Respondent. ...

2014-01-29 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2014-1893 for japantumionline.com, japantumioutlet.com, jptumionlinestore.com, jptumioutlet.com, saletumijp.com, tumijponline.com, tumijpshop.com, tumikutujapan.com, tumionlinejp.com, tumioutletonlinejp.com, tumioutletshop.com, tumisaleonlinejp.com, tumistorejp.com html (11 KB)

Complainant has therefore shown that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's mark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant's first use and first registration of its TUMI trademark predates any use by Respondent may have made of the disputed domain names by more than thirty years. ...If so, Respondent's use of the disputed domain names to sell products bearing confusingly similar reproductions of Complainant's marks plainly cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods. ...

2014-12-31 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2014-1385 for olxgifts.com html (10 KB)

Complainant The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its OLX trademark, containing its OLX trademark with the mere addition of the descriptive or non-distinctive element “gifts”. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well-established in decisions under the UDRP that generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) indicators (e.g. “.com”, “.info”, “.net”, “.org”) may be considered irrelevant in assessing confusing similarity between a trademark and a domain name. ...

2014-10-30 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2014-1156 for mailauchan.com html (10 KB)

Complainant The Complainant contends that: 1. the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety may be sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a complainant's registered mark, citing: Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. mei xudong, WIPO Case No. ...Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's well known AUCHAN trade mark. ...

2014-09-04 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2014-1059 for eclinicalwork.com html (11 KB)

Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks and that the omission of an “s” does not serve to sufficiently differentiate the Disputed Domain Name. ...Respondent contends that the current webpage showing advertisement links is parked by the US Federal Receiver acting on the orders of the US District Court, and any links to competitors of Complainant which appear at the Disputed Domain Name are the result of Complainant “seeding” the Disputed Domain Name and that this proceeding is Complainant’s attempt at reverse domain name hijacking. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks. ...

2014-09-10 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2014-0870 for gladapannkakan.com html (10 KB)

Both visual and conceptual similarities exist between the English "pancake" and the Swedish "pannkakan", making the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark HAPPY PANCAKE. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. ...Discussion and Findings The factual foundation of the Complainant's contentions as presented by the Complainant, while supporting its non-contradicted request for transfer of the disputed domain name by written evidence, leads the Panel to the following conclusions: A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The meaning of the words forming the Complainants trademark HAPPY PANCAKE, in use by the Complainant and registered well before the registration of the disputed domain name, and the meaning of the distinguishing word "gladapannkakan" in the disputed domain name , are undoubtedly easily understood, notwithstanding linguistic specifics and differences in form, in both languages to interrelate so as to make the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark. ...

2014-07-18 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2014-1039 for roperindustriesinc.com html (10 KB)

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar This Panel is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support Complainant's plausible and undisputed contention that Complainant holds unregistered or common law rights in the name "Roper". The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the mark, inasmuch as it entirely incorporates the dominant term "Roper" and merely appends the terms "Industries" and "Inc." ...

2014-08-01 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2014-2028 for legobuddies.com html (11 KB)

Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s distinctive trademark and a descriptive term “buddies” as it refers to LEGO characters. ...For the reasons mentioned above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s famous LEGO trademark. The Complainant has thus fulfilled paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...

2015-01-29 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2015-0597 for erreasport.com html (10 KB)

Complainant The Complainant contends principally that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. ...Turning to the merits, in order to prevail, the Complainant must satisfy each of the three elements under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel determines that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights, ERREA. ...

2015-06-08 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision DCO2015-0009 for southcrestbank.co html (10 KB)

The Panel gives the following reasons for its decision, corresponding to the showing the Complainant is required to make under paragraphs 4(a)(i)-(iii) of the Policy. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant proves that it has rights in the trademark SOUTHCREST based on a U.S. trademark registration. ...The Panel is of the opinion that applying these principles to this case, the disputed domain name should be considered confusingly similar to the trademark, in particular also in view of the fact that ".com" is very close to ".co". ...

2015-05-07 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2015-0230 for saltlakerunning.com html (11 KB)

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is undisputed that Complainant holds a registered trademark for SALT LAKE RUNNING. ...In the Panel’s view, and on this record, Respondent’s use of the Domain Name, which is identical to one of Complainant’s trademarks and confusingly similar to at least one of Complainant’s other trademarks, to sell products in the same class as Complainant sells cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services within the meaning of Policy paragraph 4(b)(i). ...

2015-04-27 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2015-0204 for rockefelleroil.com html (10 KB)

Complainant The Complainant submits that the Domain Name and the Trade Marks are confusingly similar, as the Domain Name incorporates the ROCKEFELLER mark in its entirety. The addition of the term “oil” does not distinguish the Domain Name from the Trade Marks as it is a generic term which does not remove the confusion. ...Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has demonstrated that it has rights in the Trade Marks. The Domain Name contains the Complainant’s ROCKEFELLER mark in its entirety which is the dominant element of the Domain Name. ...

2015-04-07 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2015-0761 for hmv-go-online.com html (11 KB)

Complainant The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its HMV trademark, comprising the Complainant’s HMV trademark with the addition only of descriptive or non-distinctive elements. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well established in decisions under the UDRP that generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) indicators (e.g., “.com”, “.info”, “.net”, “.org”) may typically be considered irrelevant in assessing confusing similarity between a trademark and a disputed domain name. ...

2015-06-04 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2010-2218 for beachesresort.info html (10 KB)

Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the names and trademarks in which the Complainant has rights and that the addition of the descriptive word “resort” does not make the disputed domain name distinctive. ...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Clearly the Respondent was not authorized to register or use the disputed domain name nor was it commonly known by it. ...

2011-03-10 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2005-0735 for baltikums.biz, baltikums.net, baltikums.org, baltikums.tv html (12 KB)

Complainant The Complainants claim to have trademark rights in the word mark Baltikums. The Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainants’ trademark. The different gTLDs are irrelevant to the finding of confusing similarity. ...All these claims are contested by the Complainants.   6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainants have proved to hold rights in the trademark Baltikums. The mark is registered in several countries around the world including in the country of residence of the Respondent, Japan. ...

2005-10-24 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2004-0672 for swissvoice.com html (11 KB)

Complainant Complainant states that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark SWISSVOICE. Complainant states that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name . ...Trademark Rights Complainant has provided sufficient evidence of its rights to the trademark SWISSVOICE. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar The domain name is identical to Complainant’s trademark SWISSVOICE with the only difference being the addition of the suffix “.com”. ...

2004-10-15 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2000-0429 for rollerblade.net html (11 KB)

Discussion and Findings In order for Complainant to prevail and have the disputed domain name transferred to it, Complainant must prove the following (the Policy, para 4(a)(i-iii): -- the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and -- the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and -- the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Identical or Confusingly Similar There can be no question that Respondent’s domain name is identical to Complainant’s trademark "Rollerblade", and this Panel so finds. ...

2000-06-28 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2004-0342 for ferrari-usa.com html (10 KB)

Complainant The Complainant contends that the domain name is confusingly similar to the registered trademark FERRARI, and creates a misleading impression that the associated website is that of Ferrari’s US subsidiary. ...Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.   6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The domain name is not identical to the registered trademark ‘FERRARI.’ However, the Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark. ...

2004-07-08 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2001-0114 for africanaol.com html (10 KB)

The Parties’ Contentions AOL contends that is nearly identical and confusingly similar to its marks and that the confusing effect is compounded by the fact that the services offered on the Respondent’s Website are identical to AOL’s. ...Identity of Confusing Similarity The panelist finds that the disputed domain name, , though not literally identical to AOL’s marks, is confusingly similar to them both on its face and in its likely effect on persons utilizing the Internet. Given how long, widely, and well the famous AOL marks are known, a reasonable Web user is likely to think that is a domain name for an African branch or subsidiary of AOL. ...

2001-04-11 - Case Details