Die Gesuchsgegnerin ist Nguyen Huong Quynh aus Hanoi, Vietnam.
2. Streitiger Domain-Name
Gegenstand des Verfahrens ist der Domainname (nachfolgend der “Domainname”).
...Die Gesuchstellerin ist seit 1996 Inhaberin der Schweizer Firma “Comparis GmbH” deren Name später im Handelsregister zu “Comparis.ch AG” geändert wurde. Die Hauptmarke COMPARIS (Nr. 556320) wurde am 14. ...
2008-07-08 - Case Details
ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER
DECISIONE DEL COLLEGIO AMMINISTRATIVO
Luigi Lavazza S.p.A. v. Gunter Minerva, Lavazza Ltd
Caso No. D2024-1997
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 come anche della modifica al Reclamo 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”).
...
2024-07-15 - Case Details
Oordeel en Bevindingen
Vooraf wordt opgemerkt dat de Regeling niet in alle opzichten dezelfde bescherming biedt als het Benelux-merkenrecht, gemeenschapsmerkenrecht en/of handelsnaamrecht. Oorspronkelijk zijn de Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) en de daarop gebaseerde regelingen, zoals de Regeling, bedoeld als instrument om excessen, zoals het kapen van domeinnamen, tegen te gaan. ...Voor de aanbieder te goeder trouw van producten of diensten onder het merk zijn deze eisen onder andere geformuleerd in de uitspraken die zijn genoemd in het WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions (“https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview/index.html”), punt 2.3 (“Can a reseller have a right or a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name?”), in het bijzonder de beslissingen die zijn gewezen in zaken waarin geen sprake was van een bijzondere contractuele relatie tussen domeinnaamhouder en merkhouder (DaimlerChrysler A.G. v. ...
2009-04-06 - Case Details
The Complainant is Groupe ADEO of France, and the Respondent is Thubaud Jean of France.
2. The disputed domain name is . The disputed domain name was registered
on June 23, 2022, with Register S.p.A. and currently resolves to an inactive website.
3. ...The Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
6. ...
2022-10-05 - Case Details
Ein Vertreter des Bundes habe anlässlich einer Sendung des Programms 10 vor 10 erklärt, dass man mit der Domain zufrieden sei und nicht beabsichtige, die Domain zu wechseln. In Bezug auf den guichet virtuel schlug der Rechtsvertreter des Gesuchsgegners der Bundeskanzlei vor, die Domain zu registrieren. ...Der Ausdruck “Schweiz” ist ohne umschreibende Zusätze ein Name, der der Gesuchstellerin zusteht (siehe den ähnlichen Entscheid des Landesgerichts Berlin vom 10. ...
2006-05-29 - Case Details
No obstante lo anterior, dado que existe un registro de marca [...] existe constituido un derecho de uso exclusivo respecto de dicha denominación, por lo que no nos encontramos únicamente frente a la presencia de una denominación descriptiva o genérica [...] el hecho de que el Titular haya registrado diversos nombres de dominio conformados por palabras o términos descriptivos o genéricos, no puede por si sólo generar un interés legítimo en su favor.”
7 Véase Compart AG v. Compart.com / Vertical Axis, Inc.,
Caso OMPI No. D2009-0462: “Respondent is not using the Domain Name in any way that is related to its generic meaning. It is using the Domain Name for a PPC parking page [...] the mere fact that a word identical to the Domain Name exists as a defined dictionary term does not give rise to any rights or legitimate interests in the name on the part of a respondent who uses it in ways like this that are not tied to the generic meaning of that word.” ...
2021-04-28 - Case Details
Such registration and use of this domain name and thousands of others which include other brands indicate bad faith as intended under the Policy. The way he explains his business, he would not have a business if he did not utilize the disputed domain name containing Complainant’s trademark”....
2017-11-27 - Case Details
도메인이름의 최상위 도메인의 기술적 부기 부분, 즉, “.com”, “.org”, “.net” 등은 도메인이름의 동일 및 유사성 판단기준에 영향을 주지 못한다. Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1525; Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady,
WIPO Case No. ...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. ...
2011-08-18 - Case Details
D2006-0517, se estableció: “‘Typosquatting’ involves the intentional registration and use of a domain name that is a common misspelling or predictable mistyping of a distinctive mark.” En AltaVista Company v. ...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”....
2019-01-10 - Case Details
Véase también ABG-Tretorn, LLC v. Web Commerce
Communications Limited, Caso OMPI No. D2022-1066: “the website associated with the disputed domain name conveys the false
impression that Complainant is somehow affiliated with Respondent or endorsing its commercial activities [...] That demonstrates neither
a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name”.
6Véase Diamond Mattress Company, Inc. v. Diamond Mattress, Caso OMPI No. D2010-1637: “Respondent’s website appears to have
been intentionally designed to capture the look and feel of the Complainant’s website, and the Respondent in the Panel’s view has failed
to effectively or accurately disclose its relationship with the Complainant. ...
2024-05-21 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVT BESLUT
Elkjøp Nordic A/S v. Swetech Jönköping Handelsbolag
Ärende Nr. D2010-0926
1. Parterna
Sökanden är Elkjøp Nordic A/S, Lørenskog, Norge, företrädd av Cedel AB, Sverige.
...Centret kontrollerade att Ansökan uppfyllde de formella kraven enligt “the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy” (“Policyn” eller “UDRP”), “the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy” (“Reglerna”), och “the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy” (“Tilläggsreglerna”).
...
2010-09-06 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
DECISIONE DEL COLLEGIO AMMINISTRATIVO
Manifattura Mario Colombo & C. S.p.A. v. Zhang Yiquan
Caso No. D2013-0765
1. Le parti
Il Ricorrente è Manifattura Mario Colombo & C. S.p.A. di Monza, Italia, rappresentato da Giambrocono & C. ...Il Centro ha verificato la conformità del Ricorso come anche dei Ricorsi modificati 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”).
...
2013-07-11 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
DECISIONE DEL COLLEGIO AMMINISTRATIVO
Enel S.p.A. v. Zoubida Es Sabihi
Caso N. D2015-0444
1. Le parti
La Ricorrente è Enel S.p.A. di Roma, Italia, rappresentata dalla Società Italiana Brevetti S.p.A., Italia.
...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”).
...
2015-06-11 - Case Details
Naar vaste rechtspraak onder de Regeling dient het country code Top-Level Domain “.nl” buiten beschouwing te worden gelaten bij de beoordeling van verwarringwekkende overeenstemming.
...Leppink
Geschillenbeslechter
Datum: 21 juli 2020
1 Gezien het feit dat de Regeling verregaand gebaseerd is op de UDRP (“Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy”), beschouwt de Geschillenbeslechter UDRP-precedent als relevant voor de huidige procedure en zal hij waar toepasselijk daarnaar verwijzen (zie bijv. ...
2020-07-23 - Case Details
Pursuant to Paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(i)-(iii) of the ADR Rules, the Panel f inds that:
The disputed domain name is 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 European Union law.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
6. In light of the above, the Panel decides that the disputed domain name should be transferred to the
Complainant.
...
2023-10-11 - Case Details
이에, 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 논쟁의 여지 없이 피신청인은 부정한 목적으로 분쟁도메인이름을 등록하였다고 판단할 수 있다. Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0403; Centurion Bank of Punjab Limited v. West Coast,
WIPO Case No. D2005-1319.
...
2014-11-28 - Case Details
Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0429; The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. v. Vidudala Prasad,
WIPO Case No. ...이에, 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. ...
2014-11-28 - Case Details
DWS2001-0003, la resolución del Grupo de Expertos establece “It is also necessary that the Complainant go beyond mere assertions in proving the essential element of bad faith. For instance, in QAS Systems Limited v. Hopewiser Limited,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0273, the Panel found that Complainant failed to prove bad faith when it failed to advance any evidence to show that the Respondent might have had the Complainant in mind when registering the Domain Name, saying the Panel should have been provided with relevant information to support assertions about material facts” (énfasis añadido). ...En Jafra Cosmetics, S.A. de C.V. and Jafra Cosmetics International, S.A. de C.V. v. ActiveVector,
Caso OMPI No. D2005-0250, el Grupo de Expertos 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”....
2008-02-25 - Case Details
The panel does not, however, draw any inferences from the default other than those that have been established or can fairly be inferred from the facts presented by Complainant and that, as a result of the default, have not been rebutted by any contrary assertions or evidence”.
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 controvertido. 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... ...The burden of proof then shifts to the respondent to rebut the complainant’s assertion”.
3 El Promovente se apoya, entre otras, en Amazon.com, Inc. v. Steven Newman a/k/a Jill Wasserstein a/k/a Pluto Newman,
Caso OMPI No. D2006-0517, en donde se estableció: “Typosquatting” involves the intentional registration and use of a domain name that is a common misspelling or predictable mistyping of a distinctive mark”. ...
2011-04-18 - Case Details
Das Zentrum stellte fest, dass die Beschwerde zusammen mit der Beschwerde auf Deutsch 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.
...Zudem gehe es bei dem streitigen Domainnamen aufgrund der generischen Top-Level-Domain ("gTLD") ".com" lediglich um einen internationalen Auftritt, der seitens der Beschwerdeführerin nicht angestrebt werde.
...
2016-11-02 - Case Details