Antecedentes de Hecho
La Demandante forma parte de uno de los mayores conglomerados de medios de comunicación y
entretenimiento a nivel mundial, cuyo origen se remonta a 1923, con la fundación de Disney Brothers Studio
por los hermanos Walt y Roy O. Disney. En la actualidad, la Demandante y su grupo empresarial operan
bajo la marca DISNEY y otras marcas relacionadas que contienen el término “disney” (DISNEYLAND, WALT
DISNEY, EURO DISNEY, DISNEY PARKS, DISNEY STUDIOS, WALT DISNEY WORLD, DISNEY MAGICAL
WORLD), con las que identifican sus productos y servicios relacionados con sus estudios cinematográficos,
diversos canales de televisión abierta y de pago, la oferta y comercialización de productos de
merchandising, así como una línea de cruceros y diversos parques temáticos, entre ellos “Disney World” en
Orlando, Estados Unidos.
...Alfredo Juan López-Sidro Gil, Caso OMPI No. DES2015-0003; Disney
Enterprises, Inc. v. John Zuccarini, Cupcake City and Cupcake Patrol, WIPO Case No. D2001-0489; Disney Enterprises, Inc. and The
Walt Disney Company Limited v. ...
2024-02-29 - Case Details
The Complainant’s substantial
trademark portfolio includes:
- over 50 United
States trademark registrations for marks that include the DISNEY mark, such
as DISNEY (for books and other printed matter), DISNEY CHANNEL (for television
broadcasting and production services), (for various online
services), DISNEY ONLINE (for various online services), WALT DISNEY (for video
cassettes, books, and other printed matter), and WALT DISNEY WORLD (for various
types of entertainment services and various types of merchandise);
- hundreds of
registrations for DISNEY and DISNEY-formative marks outside the United States
for many different goods and services, and particularly for those described
above, including almost 400 foreign trademark registrations for the DISNEY and
WALT DISNEY marks alone, i.e., excluding other DISNEY-formative marks.
...c.
– a misspelling of DISNEY WORLD.
d.
– another misspelling of DISNEY WORLD.
e.
– another misspelling of DISNEY WORLD.
...
2001-07-03 - Case Details
Centro de Arbitraje y Mediación de la OMPI
DECISIÓN DEL EXPERTO
Disney Enterprises, Inc. c. D. Alfredo Juan López-Sidro Gil
Caso No. DES2015-0003
1. Las Partes
La Demandante es Disney Enterprises, Inc., con domicilio en Burbank, California, Estados Unidos de América, representada por Elzaburu, España.
...La Demandante es titular de abundantes signos distintivos contenedores de la marca DISNEY con plenos efectos en España y, entre ellos, los siguientes:
- Marca española No. 496.206 DISNEY registrada el día 17 de febrero de 1966;
- Marca española No. 496.207 DISNEY registrada el día 17 de febrero de 1966;
- Marca española No. 496.208 DISNEY registrada el día 17 de febrero de 1966;
- Marca española No. 2.503.186 DISNEY registrada el día 6 de septiembre de 2002;
- Marca española No. 1.541.647 WALT DISNEY registrada el día 11 de enero de 1990;
- Marca española No. 1.610.181 EURO DISNEY registrada el día 8 de enero de 1991;
- Marca española No. 667.975 DISNEYLAND registrada el día 30 de septiembre de 1972;
- Marca comunitaria No. 000.186.569 DISNEY registrada el día 19 de enero de 1999;
- Marca comunitaria No. 000.186.601 WALT DISNEY registrada el día 19 de enero de 1999;
- Marca comunitaria No. 000.872.721 EURO DISNEY registrada el día 23 de noviembre de 1999.
...
2015-04-20 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Disney Enterprises, Inc., The Walt Disney Company Limited v. Stephan Huber
Case No. DEU2018-0024
1. The Parties
The Complainants are Disney Enterprises, Inc. of Burbank, California, United States of America (“US”) and The Walt Disney Company Limited of London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“UK”) (hereinafter referred to as the “Complainant”), represented by Boehmert & Boehmert, Germany.
...Factual Background
The Complainant is one of the world’s largest and best-known media companies. The Complainant Disney Enterprises, Inc. is the owner of trademarks and other intellectual property of the Disney group while The Walt Disney Company Limited administers the European business of the Walt Disney Company.
...
2018-10-19 - Case Details
Complainant has also registered numerous
domain names which include and incorporate the DISNEY mark. Complaint, Annex 5. Children and adults
around the world recognize the DISNEY name and mark and associate it with Complainant, and numerous
domain name decisions have recognized the fame of the DISNEY mark around the world. ...Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name consists of the famous DISNEY trademark and the English word “verse.”
Complainant uses the word “verse” in its role-playing game Disney Mirrorverse, and the Disney registered
domain name . ...
2022-04-07 - Case Details
In addition, the Complainant points out that the term "disney" is identical to the name of the DISNEY trademark owned by Disney Enterprises, Inc. and that the Complainant concluded a valid manufacturing agreement with said company which allows the Complainant amongst other things to use the DISNEY logo on its packaging. ...However, in the case at hand, the Disputed Domain Name contains a further part, which is identical to the DISNEY trademark. Said trademark is owned by Disney Enterprises, Inc., is registered in many countries all over the world and benefits from a very high degree of reputation (Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. ...
2012-04-25 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Disney Enterprises, Inc. and The Walt Disney Company Limited v. James West, Travel West
Case No. DEU2020-0011
1. The Parties
The Complainants are Disney Enterprises, Inc., United States of America (“United States”) and The Walt Disney Company Limited, United Kingdom, represented by Wang Law Corporation, United States.
...
2020-10-21 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
UITSPRAAK GESCHILLENBESLECHTER
Disney Enterprises Incorporated v. Stichting Domain City
Zaaknr. DNL2011-0009
1. Partijen
Eiser is Disney Enterprises Incorporated uit Burbank, Californië, Verenigde Staten van Amerika, vertegenwoordigd door Hoogenraad & Haak, advertising + IP advocaten, Nederland.
...Internetgebruikers die op zoek zijn naar informatie over Disney (zoals bijvoorbeeld informatie over pretparken als Disneyland Paris) zullen snel uitkomen op de Domeinnaam. ...
2011-04-21 - Case Details
The Domain Name resolves to a website that purports to be an official site of the Disney Corporation, including reproducing the Disney logo and purporting to offer Disney products for sale.
5. ...Rather the Respondents are using the Domain Names to create websites that purport to be the official website of the Complainant (or Disney) for the purposes of selling toy products in competition with the Complainant (or Disney), such use not being bona fide.
...
2020-11-17 - Case Details
Respondent states that there is already a domain name of longstanding: <disney-villa-florida.com> owned by a third party which resolves to the web-site of a villa just like his with no connection or affiliation to DISNEY. ...There are three very short mentions: "Legoland - 30 mins", "directly between Disney and Legoland" and "It is perfectly placed directly between Disney and the new 'must visit' Florida Legoland". ...
2011-09-22 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Marvel Characters, Inc, Pixar and Disney Enterprises, Inc v. Jason Carmody, James Kite
Case No. DAU2013-0036
1. The Parties
The Complainants are Marvel Characters, Inc of Manhattan Beach, California, United States of America; Pixar of Emeryville, California, United States of America; and Disney Enterprises, Inc, of Burbank, California, United States of America (collectively, the “Complainant”), represented by Shelston IP Lawyers, Australia.
...On December 20, 2013, the Complainant sent an email to the Center requesting reinstitution of the proceeding, and requesting the addition of the disputed domain names , and and the additional Complainants Pixar and Disney Enterprises, Inc to the Complaint. On the same date, the Center notified the parties that the proceeding had been reinstituted, the new due date for Response was January 1, 2014, and, in accordance with the Rules, it would be for the Panel to determine whether the additional domain names and the additional Complainants should be added to the Complaint.
...
2014-01-28 - Case Details
CENTRO
DE ARBITRAJE
Y MEDIACIÓN
DECISIÓN DEL EXPERTO
Disney Enterprises, Inc. c. O.J.S.
Caso No. DES2025-0013
1. Las Partes
La Demandante es Disney Enterprises, Inc. , representada por Wang Law Corporation, Estados Unidos de
América.
...María Baylos Morales
Experto
Fecha: 29 de abril de 2025
DECISIÓN DEL EXPERTO
Disney Enterprises, Inc. c. O.J.S.
Caso No. DES2025-0013
3. Iter Procedimental
4. Antecedentes de Hecho
5. ...
2025-05-05 - Case Details
Since 2009, the LEGO group has had a licence with Disney concerning the use of the Toy Story and trademarked character Buzz Lightyear. The Toy Story theme was introduced in 2009 and the Complainant has products associated with this character. ...The fact that the Complainant has products under licence from Disney connected to the figure Buzz Lightyear strengthens the impression that the Disputed Domain name belongs to the Complainant or has a commercial connection and there is a risk of tarnishment and dilution.
...
2010-12-06 - Case Details
According to the Whois database, the registrant of this domain name is the company “Disney Cruise Line”. However, the postal address provided by the registrant does not seem to be linked to “Disney Cruise Line” or Disney Enterprises, Inc. ...
2016-08-01 - Case Details
In addition, according to the Complainant, on December 17, 1997 Disney Pictures (“Disney”) acquired from Love Picin, Inc. and the founder of the Coyote Ugly bar, Liliana Lovell, the exclusive motion picture rights to the story of the Coyote Ugly bar. ...On December 2, 1999, Disney, with the consent of the Complainant, registered the domain name in order to operate a website promoting the film “Coyote Ugly” prior to its release and its website has since been available online.
...
2006-10-17 - Case Details
The Respondent’s and
domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CIALIS mark
as they merely add the “www” and “for women” generic
terms to the Complainant’s mark, which is not enough to distinguish the
domain names from the mark. See Disney v. McSherry, FA 154589 (Nat. Arb.
Forum June 17, 2003) (finding the domain name
to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s DISNEY mark because it incorporated
Complainant’s entire famous mark and merely added two terms to it); see
also Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ...The Panel finds that such use disrupts the Complainant’s business and
is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iii)
of the Policy. See Disney Enters., Inc. v. Noel, FA 198805 (Nat. Arb.
Forum November 11, 2003) (“Respondent registered a domain name confusingly
similar to Complainant’s mark to divert Internet users to a competitor’s
website. ...
2006-10-31 - Case Details
David Mizer Enterprises Inc., NAF Claim No. 622122 (finding that the complainant’s registration of the ENTERPRISE, ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR, and ENTERPRISE CAR SALES marks with the USPTO satisfied the requirement of demonstrating rights in the mark under consideration pursuant to Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i)); see also Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Paul Kudrna c/o The Finest Group, NAF Claim No. 686103 (finding that the complainant’s registration of the DISNEY trademark with the USPTO prior to the respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name is sufficient to prove that the complainant has rights in the mark pursuant to Policy, Paragraph 4(a)(i)).
...Jingyang Shen, NAF Claim No. 699645 (finding that the respondent’s use of a domain name to redirect Internet users to websites unrelated to a complainant’s mark is not a bona fide use under Policy, paragraph 4(c)(i)); see also Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Dayanand Kamble,NAF Claim No. 918556 (holding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name was not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy, paragraph 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy, paragraph 4(c)(iii)).
...
2012-02-24 - Case Details
UDRP Panels
have routinely held that the addition of a generic term to a mark in a domain
name does not distinguish the domain name from that mark. See, e.g., Disney
Enterprises, Inc. v. Lorna Kang, NAF Case No. FA00125375 (finding the domain
name confusingly similar to Disney's marks DISNEY
and DISNEYLAND despite respondent's addition of the word "hotel");
Yahoo! ...
2004-04-19 - Case Details
For such reasons, the Panel finds that Respondent must have been aware of Complainant’s trademark when it registered the disputed domain name.
In Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. John Zuccarini, Cupcake City and Cupcake Patrol,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0489, the Panel states that “The Respondents’ bad faith also is established under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. ...This intentional effort to attract users to non-Disney websites for commercial gain depends upon the Respondents’ creation of consumer confusion. Paragraph 4(b)(iv) expressly recognizes this type of conduct as bad faith. ”
To the Panel, there are no facts set out in the available record which could possibly justify the registration of the disputed domain name by Respondent.
...
2015-10-21 - Case Details
According to the Complainant, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name given that:
(i) the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or in a legitimate noncommercial or fair way;
(ii) the Respondent has not been licensed or otherwise received the Complainant’s consent to the use of the trademarks SCHINDLER SLIM / SCHINDLER;
(iii) the disputed domain name was registered on May 23, 2017 thus six days after the Complainant had filed its Swiss trademark application for SCHINDLER SLIM of May 17, 2017 (Annex 20 to the Complaint);
(iv) the Respondent has not claimed any rights to or legitimate interests in the designation “schindler slim” or “schindler” in its reply of August 7, 2017 to the Complainant’s warning letter of July 26, 2017 to the Respondent (Annexes 6 and 7 to the Complaint) as well as the Respondent did not deny the Complainant’s allegation that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name deliberately and so as to capitalize on the Complainant’s reputation (Annexes 8 and 9, communications between the parties on March 19, 2018 and March 21, 2018);
(v) the Respondent has previously registered domain names incorporating famous trademarks such as Disney, Fuji and Phonak (Annex 21 to the Complaint) and has been named Respondent in past WIPO UDRP decisions, e.g., Comerica Bank v. ...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
In the present case, the Respondent appears to have engaged in a pattern of bad faith conduct, having previously registered domain names incorporating famous trademarks such as Disney, Fuji and Phonak (Annex 21 to the Complaint), having already been named respondent in past WIPO UDRP cases.
...
2018-06-21 - Case Details