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 (0.063 sec)

Rows

<<  <  9221 - 9240  >  >>

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2010-2156 for p90xextremefitness.com html (20 KB)

In accordance with paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules, and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar UDRP panels have consistently held that domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark for purposes of the Policy “when the domain name includes the trade mark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name” (See Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...In the view of the Panel, the adoption by the Respondent of a domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark P90X inevitably leads to confusion on the part of Internet users and consumers seeking information about the Complainant and its products (see further on this point below). ...

2011-02-14 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2010-1827 for shoppanjewellery.com html (20 KB)

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has established rights in the trade marks PANDORA and PANDORA JEWELRY, through registrations of the trade marks and use, in respect of jewelry products. ...In the premises, the Panel finds the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the PANDORA JEWELRY trade mark that the Complainant has rights in. The Complainant has therefore satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...

2010-12-21 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2010-1409 for nokia168.com, nokiau.com html (20 KB)

Complainant The Complainant argues that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's marks, as they incorporate the Complainant’s marks as a whole as the distinctive part of the domain names. ...Upon considering the above, the Panel decides to accept the Complainant’s request and rules that English be the language of proceedings. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...

2010-10-27 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2010-1410 for nokiab.com, nokiad.com, nokiaf.com, nokiah.com, nokiak.com, nokiay.com html (20 KB)

Upon considering the above, the Panel decides to accept the Complainant’s request and rules that English be the language of proceedings. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...To this end, prior UDRP panels have established that attracting Internet traffic by using a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark may be evidence of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP in cases where such use is illegitimate. ...

2010-10-27 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2010-1397 for calvin-kleinunderwear.com html (19 KB)

The Panel will therefore deal with each of these requirements in turn. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Complainant must first establish that there is a trademark or service mark in which it has rights. ...D2000-0167, where the domain name was held to be confusingly similar to the trademark nike; Lime Wire LLC v. David Da Silva/Contactprivacy.com, WIPO Case No. ...

2010-10-27 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2010-0101 for 1-buyvaliumonline.info, acheter-valium-france.info, buyvaliumaustralia.info, buyvaliumonline-uk.info, valium-italia.info html (20 KB)

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar There are two requirements that a complainant must establish under this paragraph; that it has rights in a trade or service mark, and that the domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the marks. ...The second requirement is that the domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the mark. The disputed domain names are all confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks and consumers are reasonably likely to be misled into believing that these disputed domain names are associated with the Complainant's names, products, services and ultimately, achievements. ...

2010-03-29 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2010-0807 for cantoruk.com html (20 KB)

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied when a complainant is able to prove two necessary elements: first, that the complainant has rights in a trademark or service mark, and second, that the domain name in dispute is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark on which the complainant relies. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent's Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's CANTOR marks, and therefore the condition of paragraph 4(a)(i) is fulfilled. ...

2010-07-20 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2000-0836 for freencaafootballpicks.com, freencaapicks.com, ncaabasketballbracket.com, ncaabasketballbrackets.com, ncaabasketballlines.com, ncaabasketballodds.com, ncaabasketballpicks.com, ncaabasketballschedule.com, ncaabasketballscores.com, ncaabasketballstats.com, ncaabasketballtournamentbracket.com ... html (22 KB)

Application of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy to the facts Identical or Confusingly Similar Domain Names The UDRP Rules require that the Complaint "specify" the trademarks on which it is based and "for each mark, describe the goods or services, if any, with which the mark is used." ...Thus the NCAA has not met its burden of proving that names 21-32 listed below are identical or confusingly similar to the NCAA trademark. Respondent’s Rights or Legitimate Interests in the Domain Names Complainant asserts that Respondent has no legitimate interest in the domain names. ...

2000-12-01 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2015-1451 for legocafe.net html (31 KB)

Therefore, the Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's LEGO Trademarks. (ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. ...B. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant is required to establish the two following elements: (1) that it has trademark rights, and, if so, (2) that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark. ...

2015-11-10 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2021-1486 for ejuicedb.com html (35 KB)

Also frivolous is the Respondent’s argument that the disputed domain name is not confusingly similar to the JUICEDB trademark because, even though they differ by one letter, “that letter makes all the difference.” ...There is no question that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar for purposes of the Policy and that the Respondent was operating a very similar website in the exact same industry. ...

2021-07-19 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2024-5090 for whatsappog.download pdf (228 KB)

For the above reasons, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...In the present case, the Panel must decide whether the Complainant has introduced elements of proof, which allow the Panel to conclude that its allegations are true. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well established in previous UDRP decisions that, where the disputed domain name incorporates a complainant’s registered trademark, this may be sufficient to establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy. ...

2025-01-27 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2022-2042 for 02-virgin.com pdf (179 KB)

Substantive Issues A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complainant must, firstly, establish rights in a trademark or service mark and, secondly, establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. ...Privacy Protection / Muhammad Abubakar /or Domain & Hosting Provider Case No. D2022-2042 A. Identical or Confusingly Similar B. Rights or Legitimate Interests C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith...

2022-08-18 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2022-3492 for equifx.com pdf (208 KB)

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has rights in the EQUIFAX trademark. The Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to this trademark. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and hence the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been fulfilled. ...

2022-11-15 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2007-1488 for fitbearing.com html (35 KB)

Parties' Contentions A. Complainant Identical or Confusingly Similar Complainant asserts that the mark FIT BEARINGS has become a distinctive identifier of Complainant's products. ...Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trade mark. The Panel finds for Complainant on the first part of the test. ...

2007-12-27 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2012-0626 for moebelboss.com html (15 KB)

Complainant The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark SB MÖBEL BOSS. The letters “SB” stand for the German abbreviation for “Selbstbedienung”, which means “self service”. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Based upon the trade mark registrations provided with the Complaint, it appears that the Complainant has rights in the trade mark SB MÖBEL BOSS. ...

2012-06-12 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2012-0433 for elkjopnorge.com html (15 KB)

It is a violation of Norwegian intellectual property law to use a domain name that is identical, of confusingly similar, to already registered trademarks or trademarks established by law. 3. The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith. ...The disputed domain name must therefore be considered confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark. The Panel holds that the Complainant has established the first element of the Policy, paragraph 4(a). ...

2012-06-05 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2015-0659 for maidanlao.com html (15 KB)

Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...To this end, prior UDRP panels have established that attracting Internet traffic by using a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark may be evidence of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP. ...

2015-06-17 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2022-1083 for tetrapakeg.com pdf (236 KB)

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Annexes D and E to the Complaint show trademark registrations for TETRA PAK obtained by the Complainant as early as in 1951. ...It is also already well established that the addition of a gTLD such as “.com” is typically irrelevant when determining whether a domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark. As a result, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks, and that the Complainant has satisfied the first element of the Policy. ...

2022-05-18 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2021-0214 for demathius-bard-immobilier.com html (16 KB)

Registered and Used in Bad Faith As noted above, the Respondent has failed to provide any exculpatory information or persuasive reasoning that might have led the Panel to question the Complainant’s arguments that the Respondent acted in bad faith by creating confusion to the detriment of the Complainant in registering a domain name confusingly similar to the Mark, which can be considered as “typosquatting”. First, the registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a trademark by an entity that has no relationship to that mark may be, depending on the circumstances, evidence of opportunistic bad faith. ...Finally, prior UDRP panels have held that in certain circumstances, registrants of domain names have an affirmative duty to abstain from registering and using a domain name, which is either identical or confusingly similar to a prior trademark held by others, and that contravening that duty may constitute bad faith. ...

2021-03-15 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2021-1080 for aŕnoldclark.com html (15 KB)

In Knot We Trust LTD, WIPO Case No. D2006-0340. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has submitted evidence of its ownership of registrations for the ARNOLD CLARK mark in the United Kingdom. ...The Panel therefore concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ARNOLD CLARK mark. Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...

2021-05-27 - Case Details