센터는 2003년 1월 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, (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
2
언어를 기재, (8) 도메인이름의 사용과 관련하여 또는 그러한 사용에 의하여
유발되는 분쟁의 재판에 대하여 등록기관의 주된 사업소의 소재지의 재판관할에
도메인이름 등록인이 승낙했는지 여부의 기재.
...Sallen Enterprises, WIPO 사건번호 D2000-0461
3 Hewlett-Packard Company v. Full System, NAF Case FA 0094637; David G. Cook v. This Domain is For
Sale, NAF Case FA0094957; Gorstew Jamaica and Unique Vacations, Inc. v. ...
2003-03-27 - Case Details
센터는 2003년 2월 4일에 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) 통일도메인이름분쟁해결규정(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.
...Sallen Enterprises, WIPO
사건번호 D2000-0461
[3] Hewlett-Packard Company v. Full System, NAF Case FA 0094637;
David G. Cook v. This Domain is For Sale, NAF Case FA0094957; Gorstew
Jamaica and Unique Vacations, Inc. v. ...
2003-05-09 - Case Details
센터는 2003년 2월 4일에 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, (5)
통일도메인이름분쟁해결규정(Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy,
이하 "규정"이라고 약칭함)이 분쟁도메인이름에 적용된다는 점의 확인, (6)
2
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.
...Sallen Enterprises, WIPO 사건번호 D2000-0461
3 Hewlett-Packard Company v. Full System, NAF Case FA 0094637; David G. Cook v. This Domain is For
Sale, NAF Case FA0094957; Gorstew Jamaica and Unique Vacations, Inc. v. ...
2003-05-09 - Case Details
A la luz de lo anterior, el Experto considera que el uso del nombre de dominio en disputa, con el fin de engañar a los clientes de la Demandante sobre la fuente de dichos correos electrónicos, para obtener un lucro indebido de manera fraudulenta, no puede entenderse como un acto de buena fe ni como un uso legítimo, leal o no comercial (ver Instagram, LLC v. Temp Name Temp Last Name, Temp Organization;
Caso OMPI No. D2019-0249; Olayan Investments Company Establishment v. ...La conducta de suplantación de identidad elimina la posibilidad de que el Demandado pueda tener derechos o intereses legítimos sobre el nombre de dominio en disputa (ver sección 2.13.1 de la Sinopsis elaborada por la OMPI 3.0; ver también Instagram, LLC v. Temp Name Temp Last Name, Temp Organization,
Caso OMPI No. D2019-0249; ver también TRAVELGENIO, S.L. v. ...
2020-06-05 - Case Details
Halifax Group plc v. Jongsun Park
: D2001-0889
1.
:
Halifax Group plc
6th Floor Collinsons, Trinity Road
Halifax, West Yorkshire, HX1 2RG
United Kingdom
Scott Greenwood, Esq.
...ELAS ,
.
6.
11
.
(Rules for Uniform Domain Name
Dispute Resolution Policy) 4 (a)
.
( )
,
( )
,
( ) .
.
...
2001-10-18 - Case Details
The burden of proof then shifts to the respondent to rebut the complainant’s assertion”. Véase también Kellogg Company v. Luis Álvarez,
Caso OMPI No. DMX2001-0003.
6 Véase Freddy Adu v. Frank Fushille,
Caso OMPI No. 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”.
7 Este Experto considera que los alegatos del Promovente en relación a la fama de su marca podrían ser objetivamente demostrables, pero al mismo tiempo, es incumbencia de un promovente (sobretodo si está representado por abogado) de proporcionar el material adecuado en apoyo de sus argumentos.
8 En Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v. ...
2012-11-06 - Case Details
The Respondent is Secret Soap Store Franchising sp. z o.o.
The disputed domain name is . The disputed domain name was registered on January 8, 2017 with home.pl S.A. ...The disputed domain name has been registered by the Respondent without rights or legitimate interests in the name.
The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2022-01-31 - Case Details
DMX2012-0013.
2 En vista de que la Política es una variante de la Política uniforme de solución de controversias en materia de nombres de dominio (“UDRP” por sus siglas en inglés), este Experto considera apropiado referirse, en la medida de lo aplicable, a decisiones rendidas por otros expertos conforme a la UDRP.
3 El Promovente se apoya, entre otros, en Savino Del Bene Inc. v. Graziano Innocenti Gennari,
Caso OMPI No. D2000-1133, en el cual se estableció: “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”.
4 Diversas decisiones han sostenido que resulta difícil para la parte promovente acreditar hechos negativos, por lo que si ésta acredita prima facie el extremo requerido, la carga de demostrar derechos o intereses legítimos se revierte al titular del nombre de dominio en disputa. Al respecto, véase la sección 2.1 de la Sinopsis de las opiniones de los grupos de expertos de la OMPI sobre determinadas cuestiones relacionadas con la UDRP, segunda edición (“WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition”) disponible en “www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview2.0/”.
5 En Savino Del Bene Inc. v. Graziano Innocenti Gennari,
Caso OMPI No. D2000-1133, se estableció: “Respondent's registration of the company name of his former employer as a domain name is an act of bad faith”. ...
2014-10-07 - Case Details
Gerardo Saavedra
Experto Único
Fecha: 6 de agosto de 2021
1 El Promovente no precisó a que otras marcas se refiere.
2 En vista de que la Política es una variante de la Política uniforme de solución de controversias en materia de nombres de dominio (“UDRP” por sus siglas en inglés), este Experto considera apropiado referirse, en la medida de lo aplicable, a decisiones rendidas bajo la UDRP y a la doctrina reflejada en la Sinopsis de las opiniones de los grupos de expertos sobre determinadas cuestiones relacionadas con la UDRP, tercera edición (“Sinopsis de la OMPI 3.0”).
3 Véase Casio Keisanki Kabushiki Kaisha (Casio Computer Co., Ltd.) v. Jongchan Kim,
Caso OMPI No. D2003-0400: “There is no evidence that the Complainant authorized the Respondent to register the disputed domain name or to use the CASIO trademark, with or without immaterial additions or variants. 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”. Véase la sección 2.1 de la Sinopsis de la OMPI 3.0.
4 En Amazon Technologies, Inc. c. ...
2021-08-18 - Case Details
Pursuant to Paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(i)-(iii) of the ADR Rules, the Panel finds that:
The disputed domain name is 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 European Union law.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
6. ...
2023-05-09 - Case Details
The Complainant is the company Elo of France, and the Respondent is Malfate Francis of France.
2. The disputed domain name is . The disputed domain name was registered
on August 2, 2022 with Register S.p.A. and has been used to send fraudulent emails.
3. ...The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
6. ...
2023-04-06 - Case Details
Die Gesuchgegnerin ist Bündner Medien GmbH aus Chur, Schweiz, vertreten durch lic. iur. Hermann Lei, Schweiz.
2. Streitige Domain-Namen
Gegenstand des Verfahrens sind die Domain-Namen , , ,
, , , , , und (nachfolgend die „Domain-Namen”).
...Weiter ist die Gesuchstellerin der Auffassung, dass die strittigen Domain-Namen auf unlautere und widerrechtliche Weise benutzt werden. Es bestehe eine unmittelbare Verwechslungsgefahr zwischen dem Akronym „GKB“ und den strittigen Domain-Namen. ...
2013-02-20 - Case Details
La Demandada es Domain Admin, con domicilio en Ciudad de Panamá, Panamá.
2. El Nombre de Dominio y el Registrador
La Demanda tiene como objeto el nombre de dominio en disputa .
...- Que en el nombre de dominio en disputa se hallan dos referencias alusivas a la oferta de venta del nombre de dominio, bajo las expresiones: “compre este dominio” y “this domain name may be for sale by its owner!”.
- Que el nombre de dominio en disputa se registró el 13 de julio de 2018.
5. ...
2018-12-18 - Case Details
Carlos Andrés Montoya Osorio,
Caso OMPI No. D2012-1110.
2 Ver Arla Foods amba v. Bel Arbor / Domain Admin, PrivacyProtect.org,
Caso OMPI No. D2012-0875; Ver también F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. ...If the Respondent then fails to demonstrate his rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, the complaint succeeds under this head").
4 Ver Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web,
Caso OMPI No. ...
2017-09-26 - Case Details
Identité ou similitude prêtant à confusion
Dans le cadre de l'analyse de la première condition du paragraphe 4(a), les Principes directeurs n'imposent pas que les droits de marque du Requérant soient antérieurs à la réservation des noms de domaine litigieux, voire même antérieurs à l'introduction de la plainte (voir 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 est un critère purement objectif ne s'inscrivant aucunement dans une logique de comparaison chronologique avec les dates de réservation par le Défendeur des noms de domaine litigieux : la Commission administrative doit se contenter de constater si un tel droit existe ou non.
...D2000-0098; ACCOR v. S1A,
Litige OMPI No. D2004-0053et Westdev Limited v. Private Data,
Litige OMPI No. D2007-1903).
...
2014-10-13 - Case Details
Este uso no puede considerarse de buena fe, ni legítimo, ni leal”. En el mismo sentido Philip Morris Incorporated v. Alex Tsypkin,
Caso OMPI No. D2002-0946: “Respondent is not confining his use of the disputed domain name to the resale of Complainant’s cigarettes by reference to Complainant’s mark. He is trading on the fame of Complainant’s mark to sell, inter alia, the products of Complainant’s competitors”.
2 Diversas decisiones han sostenido que resulta difícil para la parte promovente acreditar hechos negativos, por lo que si ésta acredita prima facie el extremo requerido, la carga de demostrar derechos o interese legítimos se revierte al titular del nombre de dominio en disputa. En INTOCAST AG v. LEE DAEYOON,
Caso OMPI No. D2000-1467, se establece “For methodical reasons it is very hard for the Complainant to actually prove that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name, since there is no strict logical means of verifying that a fact is not given [...]. ...
2013-06-07 - Case Details
De Domeinnaam bestaat uit het gehele merk JUNIPER, gevolgd door de toevoeging “shop” en het top level domain “.nl”.
Daardoor ontstaat verwarring, waaraan toevoeging van een zuiver schrijvende aanduiding en het top level domain, niet af doet (Seiko EPSON Corporation v. ...Indien aan de voorwaarden wordt voldaan die in de wederverkoperjurisprudentie onder de Regeling en de Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) zijn ontwikkeld, zou Verweerder een legitiem belang kunnen hebben (zie onder meer Herbalife International, Inc. v. ...
2013-02-05 - Case Details
The Complainant is Sofax Banque, France, and the Respondent is Bernard Rochette, France.
2. The disputed domain name is . The disputed domain name was registered on October 3, 2022
with IONOS SE.
3. ...The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
6. In accordance with Paragraph B(11) of the ADR Rules the Panel decides that the disputed domain name
be transferred to the Complainant.
...
2023-02-17 - Case Details
In the Panel's view the correct approach is as follows: the Complainant makes the allegation and puts forward what he can in support (e.g. he has rights to the name, the Respondent has no rights to the name of which he is aware, he has not given any permission to the Respondent). ...If the Respondent then fails to demonstrate his rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, the complaint succeeds under this head.”
En definitiva, este Experto considera que ha quedado demostrado que el Demandado carece de derechos o intereses legítimos sobre los nombres de dominio en disputa.
...
2009-03-20 - Case Details
Oordeel en Bevindingen
Uit artikel 2.1 van de Regeling volgt dat een eis moet worden toegewezen indien:
(a) de domeinnaam identiek is aan of zodanig overeenstemt dat er verwarring kan ontstaan met een naar Nederlands recht beschermd merk of handelsnaam waarvan eiser rechthebbende is;
(b) de domeinnaamhouder geen recht heeft op of legitiem belang heeft bij de domeinnaam; en
(c) de domeinnaam te kwader trouw is geregistreerd of wordt gebruikt.
Op dit punt in afwijking van de Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (de "Policy") voor generic Top Level Domain Names kan de Regeling niet alleen worden ingeroepen ter bescherming van merkenrechten, maar ook voor handelsnamen waarvan een eiser rechthebbende is.1 Rechthebbende op een handelsnaam wordt men door het handeldrijven zelf, zo volgt uit artikel 1 van de Handelsnaamwet.
...D2007-1318, ; Jumeirah International LLC, Jumeirah Beach Resort LLC v. Vertical Axis, Inc, Domain Administrator / Jumeira.com,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0203, ; Province of Brabant Wallon v. ...
2017-03-09 - Case Details