Ver, por ejemplo, Compagnie Générale Des Établissements Michelin v. Rakshita Mercantile Limited,
Caso OMPI No. D2009-0808, y decisiones allí citadas ("Numerous Panel decisions decided that the mere addition of a generic or descriptive term such as "my" to Complainant mark does not influence the similarity between a trademark and a domain name (Bumble & Bumble LLC v. Eduard Gladyshev,
Caso OMPI No. D2008-1956; Kate Spade LLC v. Karen Vog,
Caso OMPI No. D2005-0284; Balenciaga S.A. v. Samir Kumar,
Caso OMPI No. D2009-0758). The mere adjunction of the generic term "my" is not able to give to the disputed domain name a sufficient distinctiveness".) ...
2014-05-09 - Case Details
Jean-Claude COMBALDIEU
Expert unique
Date : le 20 décembre 2001
La Poste v. Company L et Cie
Case n° D2001-1253
DECISION
Having seen Paragraphs 4.i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules,
The Administrative Panel decides:
(a) that the Domain Name registered by the Respondent is identical or anyway confusingly similar to the trademarks and other rights of the Complainant La Poste,
(b) that the Company L et Cie has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name ,
(c) that this Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith.
Accordingly, the Administrative Panel requires that the Domain Name
be transferred to the Complainant.
Jean-Claude COMBALDIEU
Sole Panelist
Dated: December 20, 2001...
2002-01-14 - 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”).
...Inoltre, come rilevato da numerosi Collegi in precedenti decisioni, depositi tardivi possono essere ammessi in presenza di circostanze di carattere eccezionale come la sopravvenienza di ulteriori fatti successivi al deposito del Ricorso (Parfums Christian Dior S.A. v. Jadore,
Caso OMPI No. D2000-0938; Top Driver, Inc. v. Benefits Benefits,
Caso OMPI No. D2002-0972), il desiderio di sottoporre al Collegio nuove decisioni pertinenti per il caso (Pet Warehouse v. ...
2017-06-06 - Case Details
The Respondent is Jiri Cosaksa, Slovakia.
2. The disputed domain names and were registered on
July 17, 2022, and the disputed domain names and were
registered on August 2, 2022 and on August 10, 2022 respectively. ...Pursuant to Article 4 of the Commission Regulation (EU) No. 2019/517 and Article B11(d)(1)(i)-(iii) of the
ADR Rules, the Panel finds that: - the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar 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 has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names; - the
Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith.
6. ...
2023-12-27 - Case Details
Centro de Arbitraje y Mediación de la OMPI
DECISIÓN DEL PANEL ADMINISTRATIVO
Troc Iberia, S.A. v. David Milian
Caso No. D2006-0279
1. Las Partes
La Demandante es Troc Iberia, S.A. Barcelona, España, representada por AGM Abogados, España.
...Having failed to meet its burden of proof on the first element of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Panel sees no reason to proceed any further with additional facts or arguments presented in this matter and therefore rejects Complainant’s request to transfer the disputed domain name to it, or to cancel the disputed domain name.
En el presente caso, es cierto, según alega la Demandante, que la cláusula IV, apartados 1, 2 y 3 del contrato de Master-Franquicia le legitiman para hacer uso de la marca. ...
2006-06-13 - Case Details
Streitiger Domainname
Gegenstand des Verfahrens ist der Domain-Name (nachfolgend der „Domainname”).
Die Domainvergabestelle ist SWITCH, Zürich, Schweiz.
3. ...DCH2007-0023; YouTube, LLC v. Matthias Moench,
WIPO Verfahren Nr. DCH2007-0010, u.a. und TDC Switzerland AG v. Algis Skara,
WIPO Verfahren Nr. ...
2016-10-10 - Case Details
센터가 행정적인 하자를 통지함에 따라 신청인은 2003년 8월 1일에 수정본(amendment)을 제출하였다. 센터는 분쟁해결신청서가 통일도메인이름 분쟁해결규정(Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, 이하 “규정”), 통일도메인이름분쟁해결규정에관한규칙(Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, 이하 “규칙”), 통일도메인이름분쟁해결규정에관한WIPO의보충규칙(WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, 이하 “보충규칙”)에서 요구하는 형식요건을 충족시켰음을 확인하였다.
...M. de Rooij, WIPO 사건번호 D2000-0290.
[3] Cellular One Group v. Paul Brien, WIPO 사건번호 D2000-0028.
[4] Serena Williams and Venus Williams v. Eileen White Byrne and Allgolfconsultancy, WIPO 사건번호 D2000-1673; Newman/Haas Racing v. ...
2004-01-28 - Case Details
센터가 행정적인 하자를 통지함에
따라 신청인은 2003년 8월 1일에 수정본(amendment)을 제출하였다. 센터는
분쟁해결신청서가 통일도메인이름 분쟁해결규정(Uniform Domain Name Dispute
Resolution Policy, 이하 “규정”), 통일도메인이름분쟁해결규정에관한규칙(Rules
for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, 이하 “규칙”),
통일도메인이름분쟁해결규정에관한WIPO의보충규칙(WIPO Supplemental Rules
for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, 이하 “보충규칙”)에서
요구하는 형식요건을 충족시켰음을 확인하였다.
2
규칙 제2(a)조와 제4(a)조에 따라 센터는 피신청인에게 신청서가 접수되었음과
절차가 2003년 8월 6일에 개시됨을 통지하였다. ...따라서,
피신청인이 분쟁도메인이름 에 대해서 어떠한 권리나 정당한
이익도 가지고 있지 못한 것으로 판단된다.
5 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Excel Stock Exchange, WIPO 사건번호 D2002-0966; Dr. Ing. h. c. F. Porsche
AG v. Takeda, Jim, WIPO 사건번호 D2002-0994
6 LG Chemical Ltd. v. ...
2004-01-28 - Case Details
ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER
DECISIONE DEL COLLEGIO AMMINISTRATIVO
Luigi Lavazza S.p.A. v. Carmelo Italia
Caso No. D2025-3937
1. Le Parti
Il Ricorrente è Luigi Lavazza S.p.A., Italia, rappresentato da Studio Barbero S.p.A., Italia.
...Il Centro ha verificato la conformità del Ricorso e anche del 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”).
...
2025-12-11 - Case Details
The Complainants are Sazerac Brands, LLC of United States of America and Sazerac of Ireland
Unlimited Company of Ireland, and the Respondent is vs. MTÜ Sazerac of Estonia.
2. The disputed domain name is . The disputed domain name was registered on July 6,
2020 with Zone Media OÜ and currently resolves to an inaccessible webpage.
3. ...The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith.
In the light of the above, the Panel decides that the disputed domain name should be transferred to the
Complainant Sazerac of Ireland Unlimited Company of Ireland.
2 (i) Register täidab otsuse kolmekümne (30) päeva jooksul pärast Poolte teavitamist otsusest, välja arvatud kui kostja algatab
kohtumenetluse Vastastikuse jurisdiktsiooni järgses kohtus, nagu defineeritud ADR Reeglite paragrahvis A(1).
...
2024-09-13 - Case Details
De conformidad con la información que obra en el expediente, a la presentación de la Solicitud el sitio web asociado al nombre de dominio en disputa mostraba, entre otros, “The domain puma.mx may be for sale. Click here to inquire about this domain”, “Vínculos relacionados”, “Modelos de Tenis Outlet Puma Puma Online Store Puma Shoe Puma Shop”, que desplegaban nuevas ventanas mostrando, entre otros, “MÉXICO - TENIS, ZAPATOS Y PLAYERAS NIKE | NETSHOES”, “Nike Descuentos Hasta 60% Off”, “NUEVOS MODELOS - TENIS EN MERCADO LIBRE MÉXICO”, “NUEVOS TENIS DEPORTIVOS ONLINE - COMPRA HOY EN ADIDAS® OFICIAL”, “PUMA MÉXICO - COMPRA TENIS Y SUDADERAS PUMA | NETSHOES”, “ZAPATOS VENTA ONLINE – CALZADO NOMADAS MAYOREO”.
5. ...D2004-0682: “Respondent’s factual assertions, if true, demonstrate only that he intended to use the Disputed Domain Name for a fan site. Intentions are not ‘demonstrable preparations’ to use a domain name [...] once Complainant has established his prima face case, ‘concrete evidence,’ not intentions, is necessary to overcome that presentation”. ...
2019-04-15 - Case Details
The Respondent is Gregory Zimmer.
The disputed domain name is . The disputed domain name was registered on September 5, 2019, with TLD Registrar Solutions Ltd. ...The content of the website linked to the disputed domain name suggests that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith.
In accordance with Paragraph B(11) of the ADR Rules, the disputed domain name is transferred to the Complainant.
...
2022-01-28 - Case Details
Svolgimento della procedura
Il ricorso introduttivo della presente procedura, redatto in lingua italiana, è stato trasmesso in forma elettronica all’Organizzazione Mondiale della Proprietà Intellettuale (OMPI) - Centro di Mediazione e Arbitrato (di seguito il Centro) in data 4 novembre 2004, ai sensi della Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (Policy) approvata dalla Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) il 24 ottobre 1999, delle Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (Rules), e delle WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (Supplemental Rules). ...D2001-0110; E.R. Squibb & Sons LLC. v. Roy Duke, WIPO
Case No. D2003-0806; Christie’s Inc. v. Tiffany’s Jewelry
Auction, Inc., Case No. ...
2005-01-27 - Case Details
이러한 사실로 볼 때 피신청인은 분쟁도메인이름에 대한 어떠한 권리나 정당한 이익도 갖고 있다고 할 수 없다. Archipelago Holdings LLC v. Creative Genius Domain Sales and Robert Aragon d/b/a/ Creative Genius Domain Name Sales,
WIPO Case No. ...따라서 본 행정패널은 피신청인이 분쟁도메인이름을 부정적 목적으로 등록 및 사용하고 있다고 판단한다. Polaroid Corporation v. Jay Strommen,
WIPO Case No. D2005-1005; The Knot, Inc. v. In Knot We Trust LTD,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0340.
...
2011-01-13 - Case Details
Nach einem Schriftwechsel hinsichtlich erforderlicher Kopien der Beschwerdeschrift stellte das Center fest, dass die Beschwerde den Anforderungen der Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy („Verfahrensordnung") und der Ergänzenden Verfahrensregeln der WIPO genügt und dass ordnungsgemäss gezahlt wurde. ...Entscheidungsgründe
Paragraph 4(a) der Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("Richtlinie") führt drei Elemente auf, die der Beschwerdeführer nachweisen muss, um die Feststellung zu rechtfertigen, dass der Domainname des Beschwerdegegners auf den Beschwerdeführer zu übertragen ist:
1) dass der Domainname mit einer Marke, aus welcher der Beschwerdeführer Rechte herleitet, identisch oder verwechslungsfähig ähnlich ist;
2) dass der Beschwerdegegner weder Rechte noch ein berechtigtes Interesse an dem Domainname hat; und
3) dass der Domainname bösgläubig registriert wurde und benutzt wird
1) Verwechslungsgefahr mit einer Marke, aus welcher der Beschwerdeführer Rechte herleitet
Der Beschwerdeführer beruft sich in erster Linie auf seine Rechte an dem Unternehmenskennzeichen „Knappschaft" gemäss § 5 Absatz 2 des deutschen Markengesetzes. ...
2002-10-31 - Case Details
La Commission administrative retient, conformément au point 1.4 de la Synthèse des avis des commissions administratives de l’OMPI sur certaines questions relatives aux principes UDRP, deuxième édition (Synthèse, version 2.0), que le fait qu’une marque ait été déposée postérieurement à un nom de domaine litigieux n’empêche pas que ce nom de domaine soit considéré comme similaire à la marque postérieure en question, comme le rappelle le Requérant, les Principes directeurs ne faisant aucune référence à la date à laquelle les droits de marque opposés ont été acquis (Esquire Innovations, Inc. v. Iscrub.com c/o Whois Identity Shield; and Vertical Axis, Inc, Domain Adminstrator,
Litige OMPI No. D2007-0856, et The State of Tennessee, USA contre (DOMAIN NAME 4 SALE) DOMAIN-NAME-4-SALE eMAIL baricci@attglobal.net,
Litige OMPI No. D2008-0640).
L’existence du droit du Requérant sur l’élément objet de l’atteinte est un critère purement objectif ne s’inscrivant aucunement dans une logique de comparaison chronologique avec la date de réservation par le Défendeur du nom de domaine litigieux: la Commission administrative doit se contenter de constater si de un tel droit existe ou non.
...
2014-05-07 - Case Details
D2024-2535, et
- Carrefour SA et Atacadão S.A. c. Domain Privacy, Domain Name Privacy Inc, Litige OMPI No.
D2024-2527.
- Le Requérant, fondé en 1959 et présent au Maroc depuis 2009, est une entité bien connue. ...D2024-2535 et Carrefour SA et Atacadão S.A. c. Domain Privacy, Domain Name Privacy
Inc. Litige OMPI No. D2024-2527.
L’analyse des preuves soumises montre que le Défendeur n’a pas utilisé le nom de domaine litigieux dans le
cadre d’une offre de bonne foi de biens ou services, ni pour un usage légitime ou non-commercial. ...
2024-11-25 - Case Details
The Respondent is PROLINK Internet communications GmbH, represented by Heisel Patente Marken
Designs, Switzerland.
2. The disputed domain name was registered on May 2, 2006 and it does not resolve to an
active website.
3. ...Pursuant to Paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(i)-(iii) of the ADR Rules, the Panel finds that:
- The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s surname SCHMIDT, which is protected
under Section 12 of the German Civil Code;
- The Complainant has failed to comply with the requirements of Paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(ii) of the ADR
Rules;
- the Complainant has failed to comply with the requirements of Paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(iii) of the ADR
Rules.
6. ...
2023-10-23 - Case Details
센터는 2002년 10월 8일에 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 .
...Cook v. This Domain is For Sale,
NAF Case FA0094957; Gorstew Jamaica and Unique Vacations, Inc. v. Travel
Concierge, NAF Case FA0094925; Pharmacia & Upjohn Company v.
...
2003-01-31 - Case Details
센터는 2002년 10월 8일에 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, 전 화 번 호, 팩시밀리번호, 전자우편주소)의 제공,
2
(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 .
...Cook v. This Domain is For
Sale, NAF Case FA0094957; Gorstew Jamaica and Unique Vacations, Inc. v. Travel Concierge, NAF
Case FA0094925; Pharmacia & Upjohn Company v. ...
2003-01-31 - Case Details