Such use demonstrates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name”. Véase también Houghton Mifflin Co. v. The Weathermen, Inc.,
Caso OMPI No. D2001-0211 “As a result of the content of the page, a visitor to Respondent’s site would be likely to believe that it was Complainant’s official site. ...Véase la sección 2.1 de la Sinopsis de la OMPI 3.0.
6 En Jafra Cosmetics, S.A. de C.V. and Jafra Cosmetics International, S.A. de C.V. v. ActiveVector,
Caso OMPI No. D2005-0250, se estableció: “due to the intrinsically distinctive character of Complainants’ trademarks, it is inconceivable that the contested domain name would have been registered and used if it were not for exploiting the fame and goodwill of Complainants’ marks by diverting Internet traffic intended for Complainant”....
2021-04-28 - Case Details
Sur la demande du Défendeur de constater un abus de procédure (Reverse Domain Name
Hijacking)
Le Défendeur sollicite une constatation par la Commission administrative d’un abus de procédure (Reverse
Domain Name Hijacking ou RDNH).
...In light of the earlier registration of the disputed domain name and the elements produced by the
Complainant and Respondent, the Panel considers that there is no evidence that the Respondent has
registered or is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
6. ...
2025-09-25 - Case Details
Il Centro ha verificato la conformità del Ricorso, unitamente al Ricorso modificato, alla Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (la “Policy”), alle Norme per la Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (le “Norme”) e alle Norme Supplementari per la Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (le “Norme Supplementari”).
...Tale somma è certamente ben al di sopra degli ordinari costi di registrazione di un nome a dominio (si vedano in proposito Bencom SRL v. NetCorporation,
Caso OMPI No. DRO2006-0007; LACER S.A. v. Constanti Gòmez Marzo,
Caso OMPI No. D2001-0177; Hipercor, S.A. v. ...
2012-02-29 - Case Details
En Casio Keisanki Kabushiki Kaisha (Casio Computer Co., Ltd.) v. Jongchan Kim,
Caso OMPI No. D2003-0400, se establece: “There is no evidence that the Complainant authorized the Respondent to register the disputed domain name or to use the CASIO trademark […] These circumstances are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing by the Complainant of absence of rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name on the part of the Respondent.”
4 Véase Diamond Mattress Company, Inc. v. ...In view of the foregoing, The Panel concludes that the Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain names in bad faith.” Véase también Thomas Wuttke v. Sharing,
Caso OMPI No. D2011-1809....
2019-09-12 - Case Details
Conforme já ficou estabelecido em decisões anteriores sob a regência da UDRP, “[t]he existence of sponsored links on the website also clearly demonstrates that the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name as a legitimate non-commercial fan site. On the contrary, it appears plain that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to make a commercial gain.” Ver Gene Kelly Image Trust v. BWI Domain Manager, Caso OMPI n. D2008-0342.
Portanto, o Especialista conclui que a Reclamada não está veiculando ofertas de boa fé de produtos e serviços, uma vez que a Reclamada utiliza-se do nome de domínio em disputa para auferir ganhos com links patrocinados. ...
2012-09-11 - Case Details
ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER
BESLISSING ADMINISTRATIEF PANEL
DKH Retail Limited en Supergroup Retail Ireland Limited v. Domain Manager,
Evolution Media e.U.
Zaak nr. DEU2022-0014
1. De Partijen
Klagers zijn DKH Retail Limited, Verenigd Koninkrijk (“Klager 1”) en Supergroup Retail Ireland Limited,
Ierland (“Klager 2”), vertegenwoordigd door Wiggin LLP, België.
...case=D2021-1179
BESLISSING ADMINISTRATIEF PANEL DKH Retail Limited en Supergroup Retail Ireland Limited v. Domain Manager, Evolution Media e.U.
Zaak nr. DEU2022-0014...
2022-08-22 - Case Details
Das Zentrum stellte daraufhin fest, dass die Beschwerde den Anforderungen der Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("Verfahrungsordnung") und der Ergänzenden Verfahrensregeln der WIPO genügt, und dass ordnungsgemäß gezahlt wurde. ...Zusätzlich
liegt es im Hinblick auf die Haupttätigkeit des Beschwerdeführers
ebenfalls nahe, seine Website in der ".net" Domain und nicht nur
in der ".com" Domain zu suchen. Statt eine Website des Beschwerdeführers
zu erreichen, landen Interessenten aber auf eine Website des Beschwerdegegners.
...
2002-06-28 - Case Details
Das Zentrum stellte fest, dass die Beschwerde den formellen Anforderungen der Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (der "Richtlinie"), der Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (der "Verfahrensordnung") und der WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (der "Ergänzenden Verfahrensregeln") genügt.
...Darüber hinaus verfügt die Beschwerdeführerin nachgewiesenermaßen u.a. über die Domain , unter der sie ihre offizielle Website "www.dkb.de" zur Bewerbung ihrer Finanzdienstleistungen betreibt.
...
2018-07-23 - Case Details
센터는 2002년 6월 7일에 등록기관에 대해서 다음 사항을 요청하는 전자우편을 발송했다. (1)통일도메인이름분쟁해결규정을 위한 WIPO보충규칙(이하 "보충규칙"이라고 약칭함) 제4(b)조의 규정에 따라서, 신청인이 신청서 사본을 등록기관에도 발송했는지 여부확인, (2)본건의 도메인이름이 등록기관에 등록된 것인지 여부확인, (3)피신청인이 현재의 도메인이름 등록인인지 여부확인, (4) 등록기관의 인명검색 데이터베이스(WHOIS database)에서 확인할 수 있는 도메인이름 등록인, 그 기술적 연락담당자(technical contact), 그 행정 담당자 (administrative contact), 수수료 담당자(billing contact)에 관한 세부정보 (즉, 우편주소, 전화번호, 팩시밀리번호, 전자우편주소)의 제공, (5)통일도메인이름 분쟁해결규정(Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, 이하 "규정"이라고 약칭함)이 분쟁도메인이름에 적용된다는 점의 확인, (6) 분쟁도메인이름의 현재상황의 기재, (7) 등록기관에 의하여 등록약관에서 사용된 언어를 기재, (8) 도메인이름의 사용과 관련하여 또는 그러한 사용에 의하여 유발되는 분쟁의 재판에 대하여 등록기관의 주된 사업소의 소재지의 재판관할에 도메인이름 등록인이 승낙했는지 여부의 기재 .
...Hewlett-Packard Company v. Full System,
NAF Case FA0094637; David G. Cook v. This Domain is For Sale, NAF Case
FA0094957; Gorstew Jamaica Limited and Unique Vacations, Inc. v. ...
2002-09-18 - Case Details
Der Gesuchsgegner ist Lucjan Misiag, Polen.
2. Streitige Domain-Name
Gegenstand des Verfahrens ist der Domainname . Die Domainvergabestelle ist SWITCH.
3. ...DCH2007-0023; YouTube, LLC v. Matthias Moench,
WIPO Verfahren Nr. DCH2007-0010; und TDC Switzerland AG v. Algis Skara,
WIPO Verfahren Nr. ...
2019-10-04 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ENTSCHEIDUNG DES BESCHWERDEPANELS
Fashion Television International Limited v. fashiontv.com GmbH
Verfahren Nr. D2015-0534
1. Die Parteien
Beschwerdeführerin ist Fashion Television International Limited aus London, Grossbritannien, intern vertreten.
...Das Zentrum stellte fest, dass die Beschwerde den formellen Anforderungen der Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy („Richtlinie“), der Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy („Verfahrensordnung“) und der WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy („Ergänzende Verfahrensregeln“) genügt.
...
2015-06-17 - Case Details
Carlos Andrés Montoya Osorio,
Caso OMPI No. D2012-1110.
2 Ver Forest Laboratories, Inc. v. candrug,
Caso OMPI No. D2008-0382 (“when a respondent merely adds generic or descriptive terms to a distinctive trademark, the domain name should be considered confusingly similar to the registered trademark”.)...If the Respondent then fails to demonstrate his rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, the complaint succeeds under this head”).
6 Ver Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web,
Caso OMPI No. ...
2016-12-05 - Case Details
Ian Musk & GEMS Global Electronic Minibar Systems AS,
Caso OMPI No. D2005-0035.
15 Véase Savino Del Bene Inc. v. Graziano Innocenti Gennari,
Caso OMPI No. D2000-1133: "as a rule, former employees do not have a legitimate right or interest in registering in their own name their former employer's trademark as a domain name".
16 Diversas decisiones han sostenido que resulta difícil para la parte demandante acreditar hechos negativos, por lo que si ésta acredita prima facie el extremo requerido, le corresponde al demandado demostrar sus derechos o intereses legítimos en el nombre de dominio en disputa. ...Events Limited v. Manheim Equities, Inc. and Produ...
2018-06-07 - Case Details
Il Centro ha verificato la conformità del Ricorso alla Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (la “Policy”), alle Norme per la Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (le “Norme”), e alle Norme Supplementari per la Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (le “Norme Supplementari”).
...In mancanza, l'onere di provare la carenza di diritti e interessi legittimi del Resistente deve ritenersi assolto dal Ricorrente (Universal City Studios Inc. v. G.A.B. Enterprises,
Caso OMPI No. D2000-0416; PwC Business Trust v. Culito Sa,
Caso OMPI No. D2001-1109).
...
2010-04-21 - Case Details
Citind dintr-un caz anterior: "In the ordinary case, a business adopting a new mark in today's world must take the Internet as it finds it. If someone else has already registered a domain name identical or confusingly similar to the proposed new mark, the domain name will be unavailable to the business unless it negotiates a transfer" ( e-Duction, Inc v John Zuccarini, d/b/a The Cupcake Party & Cupcake Movies,
Cazul OMPI nr. ...D2008-0945 şi Camon S.p.a. v Intelli-Pet, LLC
Cazul OMPI nr. D2009-1716 şi Prime Pictures LLC v DigiMedia.com L.P.
Cazul OMPI nr. ...
2011-04-06 - Case Details
The Complainant was also previously the owner of ITAKA trademark, which was registered with the UPRP on May 6, 1996, No. R.090419.
4. The Domain Name was registered by the Respondent on May 10, 2007. At the time of submitting the Complaint and adopting this Decision, the Domain Name resolved to the website “www.sklep.premium.pl/itaka.eu”, which offered the Domain Name for sale.
5. Pursuant to Article 21(1) of the Commission Regulation (EU) No. 874/2004 and Article B11(d)(1)(i) - (iii) of the ADR Rules, the Panel finds that: the Domain Name is identical to a name in respect of which a right or rights are recognized or established by national law of a Member State and / or EU-law; the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name; the Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith. ...
2022-04-04 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
UITSPRAAK GESCHILLENBESLECHTER
Koen Konings h.o.d.n. ZENN v. Zenn
Zaaknr. DNL2013-0060
1. Partijen
Eiser is Koen Konings h.o.d.n. ZENN uit Groningen, Nederland.
...Van Eiser, die advocaat is en zelf de Eis heeft ingediend, had naar het inzicht van de Geschillenbeslechter verwacht mogen worden dat hij onderzoek had gedaan naar de Regeling en de geldende jurisprudentie daaronder, waaruit duidelijk zou zijn geworden dat het instellen van een vordering tegen Verweerder geen kans van slagen had en dus onnodig beslag zou leggen op Verweerder, het Instituut en de Geschillenbeslechter. Zou op de Eis de Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) van toepassing zijn dan zou de Geschillenbeslechter hebben geoordeeld dat sprake is van Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. ...
2014-02-04 - Case Details
Il Centro ha verificato la conformità del Ricorso alla Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (la "Policy"), alle Norme per la Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (le "Norme"), e alle Norme Supplementari per la Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (le "Norme Supplementari").
...Primary Source (Caso OMPI No. D2000-0362);
Simple Shoes, Inc. v. Creative Multimedia Interactive (Caso Nat. Arb.
Forum No. FA 0008000095343), Dell Computer Corporation v. ...
2004-01-30 - Case Details
D2000-0768; Ente Público de Comunicación del Principado de Asturias, Televisión del Principado de Asturias, SAU, Radio del Principado de Asturias, SAU v. Victor Merino Gutierrez/Fast Domain Inc.,
Caso OMPI No. D2010-0514; Mapfre Familiar, Compañía De Seguros Y Reaseguros, S.A. v. ...En Coast Hotels Ltd. v. Bill Lewis and UNITE HERE,
Caso OMPI No. D2009-1295, se estableció: “this Panel finds that the Respondent has on the record in this present case established under paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy that its registration and use of the disputed domain name in respect of a website critical of the Complainant amounts to a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Names”. ...
2014-07-28 - Case Details
On one approach, the logo element of the complainant’s mark is ignored in the comparison with the disputed domain name, on the basis that it is normally the words which convey the mark’s principal meaning, or impression. ...Or, le document intitulé WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, disponible en ligne sur le site Internet du Centre, dispose en son paragraphe 2.2:
"Factors a panel tends to look for when assessing whether there may be rights or legitimate interests would include the status and fame of the trademark, whether the respondent has registered other domain names containing dictionary words or phrases, and whether the domain name is used in connection with a purpose relating to its generic or descriptive meaning (e.g., a respondent may well have a right to a domain name "apple" if it uses it for a genuine site for apples but not if the site is aimed at selling computers or MP3 players, for example, or an inappropriate other purpose".
...
2011-09-07 - Case Details