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 (0.064 sec)

Rows

<<  <  45221 - 45240  >  >>

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2008-1770 for claro.com html (18 KB)

Complainant Complainant contends that the domain name at issue is identical or confusingly similar to trade marks and service marks in which Complainant has rights, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name at issue, and that Respondent has registered and is using the domain name at issue in bad faith. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The word “claro” is the equivalent of the English word “clear” in the Spanish or Portuguese language. ...

2009-01-22 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2000-0776 for veuvecliquot.com html (18 KB)

The Complainant submits that the said domain name is confusingly similar and "practically identical" to the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant points out that the single difference between the Complainant’s trademark "VEUVE CLICQUOT" and the said domain name "veuvecliquot.com" is that the letter "c" does not appear in the said domain name. ...In the view of this Administrative Panel the said domain name is confusingly similar to the said trademark. The single difference between the Complainants trademark and the said domain name "veuvecliquot.com" is that the letter "c" does not appear in the said domain name. ...

2000-09-21 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2000-1496 for guerlain.org, guerlainperfume.com, guerlainsa.com html (19 KB)

Parties’ Contentions (i) Complainant The Complainant alleges that the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the Guerlain trademark. It points out that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. ...The two Domain Names and are therefore to be considered as confusingly similar to the Guerlain trademark in the sense of Article 4 (a) (i) of the Policy. (ii) Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel does not have any evidence that Complainant has licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use its trademark or to apply for the Domain Name incorporating this mark. ...

2001-03-06 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2000-1520 for cellularone-store.com html (19 KB)

These elements are that: (i) Respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (iii) Respondent’s domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. ...Decision As to the requested relief in these proceedings, Complainant has proved the necessary element that the name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark or service mark. Complainant, however, has not shown that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and that Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith and is using it in bad faith. ...

2001-02-12 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2000-1608 for womenonwaves.com html (18 KB)

A Identical or confusing similarity It is prima facie obvious that the Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s WOMEN ON WAVES mark and, therefore, that they are confusingly similar. B Rights or Legitimate Interest of the Respondent The Respondent has not filed a Response and does not appear to have any rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Name. ...Decision In the light of the foregoing, the panelist decides that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark and the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests relating to the Domain Name which was registered and used in bad faith. ...

2001-02-02 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2000-1632 for ebay4sex.com, ebaysexauction.com html (18 KB)

Parties’ Contentions The Complainant alleges in summary: (a) The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark in that there is added to the mark generic terms, i.e., sex, auction and the number 4. ...The domain names "ebay4sex.com" and "ebaysexauction.com" in the judgment of the Panel, are confusingly similar to the mark. The addition of the generic words does not detract from the potential to confuse Internet users. ...

2001-01-18 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2000-1783 for robein.com html (23 KB)

Secondly, according to Complainant, the fact that some domain names registered by Namezero, which are (confusingly) similar to some famous trademarks are redirected to Mr. Edens’ website (www.thelighted.com) is indication that the Respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent Complainant from reflecting its trade mark in a corresponding domain name and that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such behaviour. ...Respondent states that before Complainant contacted Respondent for the first time he used test pages as a website.   7.Discussion and Findings a.Trademark rights Complainant has provided sufficient evidence of its rights to the trademark ROBEIN in the Benelux. b.Identical or confusingly similar The domain name is clearly confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark ROBEIN. ...

2001-05-03 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2000-1433 for balisto.com html (17 KB)

ii) Registration for the purpose of preventing the owner of an identical or confusingly similar trademark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct. ...According to this provision, registration for the purpose of preventing the owner of an identical or confusingly similar trademark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. ...

2001-01-16 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2000-1446 for verasign.com, veresign.com html (20 KB)

Complainant alleges that passive holding of these names constitutes a violation of paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy since these names are identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks of others. Complainant states that Respondent has used the domain name "verasign.com" to resolve to a web site entitled "Onlinemalls.com". ...Footnote 6) The Panel determines that the disputed domain names "veresign.com" and "verasign.com" are confusingly similar to "VERISIGN" in the sense of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. Complainant has met the burden of proving that Respondent is the registrant of domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights, and it has thus established the first of the three elements necessary to a finding that Respondent has engaged in abusive domain name registration. ...

2001-02-05 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2001-0105 for musclenfitness.com html (19 KB)

Complainant The domain name "musclenfitness.com" is the same as or is confusingly similar to the MUSCLE & FITNESS mark registered to and used by Complainant on magazines and on-line magazines. ...The panel finds the disputed domain name to be virtually identical and to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant has established this element. Illegitimacy Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out, without limitation, circumstances which, if proved, establish a registrant’s rights or legitimate interests to a disputed domain name. ...

2001-03-20 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2000-1289 for etroboutique.com html (19 KB)

Boutique" is a general term commonly used in order to indicate the shop through which fashion products are commercialized. The Panelist finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks since the word "boutique" is directly related to the Complainant’s business and therefore the combination with Etro is clearly confusing (Yahoo! ...Decision The Panelist decides that: (a) the domain name "etroboutique.com" is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademarks; (b) Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name "etroboutique.com"; and (c) the domain name "etroboutique.com" has been registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondents. ...

2000-12-14 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2001-0356 for freelottocash.com, jumbofreelotto.com, megafreelotto.com html (19 KB)

Complainant Essentially, the contentions of the Complainant are as follows: The Disputed Domain Names wholly incorporate the Complainant's FREELOTTO and FREELOTTO.COM marks, trade names, and domain names, and are confusingly similar to the marks, trade names, and domain names of the Complainant; The Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names; and The Respondents have registered and are using the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith. ...D2000-0140 (April 24, 2000) notes that under the Policy, even if the respondent is in default, "…the complainant must prove that each of these three elements are present." 6.3 Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant claims and has established first use and ownership of the FREELOTTO marks. ...

2001-07-11 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2002-0126 for telstrainternational.net html (18 KB)

Discussion and Findings In order to succeed in its Complaint the Complainant has to show the following elements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"), paragraph 4 (a):- (i) The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. (ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name. ...The Panel proposed to deal with each of these elements in turn. (i) The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant contends that the relevant part of the domain name "Telstra International" is confusingly similar to the name Telstra which is the subject of the extensive portfolio of trade marks "Telstra" referred to above. ...

2002-06-05 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2002-0333 for thaigem.info html (18 KB)

Parties' Contention 5.1 Complainant The Complainant contends that the said Domain Name, which is confusingly similar to its United States trade mark registration, cannot be used without inferring an affiliation to it. ...In view of the default it is open to the Panel, under paragraph (14)(b) of the Rules to: "draw such inferences…as it considers appropriate." 6.2 Elements to be proved To succeed, the Complainant must establish under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy that i) the said Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which it has rights; ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the said Domain Name; and iii) the said Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent. 6.3 Identical or confusingly similar The Complainant is a company organized and existing under the laws of the Cayman Islands and has its principal office there. ...

2002-07-29 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2002-0358 for thaigem.net html (18 KB)

Parties' Contention 5.1 Complainant The Complainant contends that the said Domain Name, which is confusingly similar to its United States trade mark registration, cannot be used without inferring an affiliation to it. ...In view of the default it is open to the Panel, under paragraph (14)(b) of the Rules to: "draw such inferences…as it considers appropriate." 6.2 Elements to be proved To succeed, the Complainant must establish under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy that i) the said Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which it has rights; ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the said Domain Name; and iii) the said Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent. 6.3 Identical or confusingly similar The Complainant is a company organized and existing under the laws of the Cayman Islands and has its principal office there. ...

2002-07-29 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2002-0362 for firstunioncredit.com html (24 KB)

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that Complainant must prove, each of the following: (i) The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; and (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (iii) The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The domain at issue is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s FIRST UNION mark. The only difference between FIRST UNION and the disputed domain is that Respondent has added the generic word "credit," which Complainant also uses in connection with FIRST UNION. ...

2002-07-08 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2001-0431 for fairmont-resorts.com, fairmonthotels.com html (25 KB)

Discussion and Findings Domain Names Identical or Confusingly Similar to Complainant’s Mark 6.1. In relation to the domain name , the relevant part of this domain name is "fairmonthotels". ...Accordingly, this Administrative Panel finds that both the domain names the subject of this Complaint are confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. Respondent’s Rights or Legitimate Interests in the Domain Names 6.2. ...

2001-05-23 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2002-0028 for airfrance-delta.com, airfrance-delta.net html (20 KB)

These elements are that: "(i) Respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (iii) Respondent’s domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith." ...Furthermore, the Panel decided in the case of and that "Each of the disputed domain names incorporates in full the "Vivendi" mark, in combination with either the "Universal" or "Seagram" marks and, thus, are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks." [2] (see also the case [3]). Complainant therefore met the burden of proving that Respondent is the registrant of domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks owned by Complainant. ...

2002-04-02 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2001-1038 for soultrain.org html (17 KB)

Alternatively, it contends that the subject domain name "… is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark in that the mark is entirely incorporated into the domain name". ...Whether a domain name is confusingly similar is an objective inquiry related to the mark and the domain name and is not anchored in the activities of the parties. ...

2001-10-18 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2001-0684 for s-m-i-r-n-o-f-f.com html (18 KB)

The Complainant, of course, carries the onus of making its case. 6.2 Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s Marks. The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has very extensive rights in the word SMIRNOFF as a trademark throughout the world. ...The Panel finds that the Domain Name is, at the very least, confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. 6.3 The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. ...

2001-08-15 - Case Details