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 (0.061 sec)

Rows

<<  <  57801 - 57807

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2007-0071 for dowango.com, dowango.net html (23 KB)

審理および事実認定 処理方針4条(a)項は、申立人に対し、本件ドメイン名が次の要件を満たしていることの立証を求めている: 1) 被申立人が登録したドメイン名が、申立人が権利を有する商 標また は役務標章(サービスマーク)と同一(identical)であるか、または混同を生じさせるほど類似している(confusingly similar) こと; (2) 被申立人が当該ドメイン名についていかなる権利または適法な利益(rights or legitimate interests)も有しないこと;および、 (3) 当該ドメイン名は不正に(悪意で(in bad faith)) 登録され、かつ使用 されていること。...

2007-04-18 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2001-1094 for cognigencorp.com html (39 KB)

Similarity The Complainant apparently takes the position that the contested domain name is nearly identical and hence confusingly similar to its registered mark "COGNIGEN", by virtue of its inclusion of the term "COGNIGEN", as to likely confuse Internet users as to source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the services advertised on the Respondent's web site; hence, satisfying the confusing similarity requirement in paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...

2002-01-14 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2015-0499 for unicataluna.net, unicatalunya.co, unicatalunya.com, unicatalunya.info, unicatalunya.net, unicatalunya.org, unicatalunyavirtual.net, unicataluña.net html (47 KB)

D2011-2312 ("Ultimately, however, this Panel need not to decide the question of whether the Complaint establishes that Respondent's disputed domain name is confusingly similar to marks of Complainant, since the Panel has determined that the Complaint fails on other grounds, as elaborated below.") ...

2015-08-03 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2000-0596 for sting.com html (44 KB)

Discussion and Findings Domain Name Identical or Confusingly Similar to Complainant’s Mark 6.1 The relevant part of the domain name "sting.com" is "sting". ...

2000-07-25 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision DMX2013-0003 for spotify.com.mx, spotify.mx html (49 KB)

D2008-0183 se establece: “The Policy was adopted to deal with the problem of cybersquatting - that is, the registration of domain names consisting of, including, or confusingly similar to marks belonging to another for the purpose of profiting from the goodwill associated with the mark”. 5 En Intocast AG v. ...

2013-06-11 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision DMX2013-0018 for netgear.com.mx, netgear.mx html (49 KB)

D2008-0183 se establece: “The Policy was adopted to deal with the problem of cybersquatting - that is, the registration of domain names consisting of, including, or confusingly similar to marks belonging to another for the purpose of profiting from the goodwill associated with the mark”. 4 En Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, Sony Corporation v. ...

2013-11-27 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2000-1072 for newyorktimes.com html (51 KB)

Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that The New York Times must prove, with respect to the domain name in issue, each of the following: (i) The domain name in issue is identical or confusingly similar to The New York Times’ trademark in issue here, 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. ...

2000-12-11 - Case Details