En términos del
alcance limitado de la Política, lo anterior constituye un registro y uso de mala fe del nombre de dominio en
disputa.5
Por consiguiente, este Experto tiene por satisfecho el supuesto previsto en el párrafo 4(a)(iii) de la Política.
4Véase 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”.
5Véase Invex Controladora, S.A.B. de C.V. c. Othoniel Cabrera Rocha, Caso OMPI No. ...
2025-03-05 - 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.”
3 En DaimlerChrysler Corporation v. ...DRO2006-0003, se estableció: “The registration and use in any form of a famous trademark which belongs to somebody else, without proving any rights or legitimate interests in it, represents bad faith registration and use.”
4 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.” ...
2019-12-13 - Case Details
Identiek of Verwarringwekkend Overeenstemmend
Om te beoordelen of domeinnamen identiek zijn of verwarringwekkend overeenstemmen met de rechten waarop eiser zich beroept moet volgens vaste jurisprudentie onder de Regeling bij deze beoordeling het top level domain “.nl” buiten beschouwing worden gelaten (zie bijvoorbeeld Roompot Recreatie Beheer B.V. v. Edoco LTD,
WIPO Zaaknr. ...Dienaangaande verwijst Eiseres naar Maison Louis Latour v. Jos Beeres Wijnkoperij,
WIPO Case No. DNL2011-0074, waarin de geschillenbeslechter onder verwijzing naar bestendige rechtspraak onder de Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) en de Regeling heeft geoordeeld dat een verweerder een recht of legitiem belang in de zin van de Regeling heeft indien de verweerder distribiteur is van de onder het ingeroepen merk verkochte producten en aan vier eisen wordt voldaan (zie Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ...
2013-01-29 - Case Details
Pursuant to Paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(i-iii) of the ADR Rules, the Panel finds 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 the light of the above, the Panel decides that the disputed domain name should be transferred to the
Complainant.
...
2025-04-03 - Case Details
Dichas diferencias, no obstante, no deben considerarse suficientemente relevantes pues se derivan de las actuales condiciones de uso de los nombres de dominio en el marco del DNS (Domain Name System) y no eliminan un riesgo de identidad entre las mencionadas marcas y los Nombres de Dominio. ...Albert Agustinoy Guilayn
Experto Único
Fecha: 13 de noviembre de 2007
1 Traducción no oficial del texto original inglés: “Significantly, there is nothing to suggest that when the Respondent registered the Domain Name it intended to violate anybody’s trademark rights, nor in the view of the Panel could the Respondent sensibly have anticipated that by registering the Domain Name it would be violating any such rights. ...
2007-11-22 - Case Details
A este respecto, al Experto le parece importante recordar la comparación de la marca registrada del Demandante con el término “transportcobro”, y traer a colación la tesis sustentada por otras decisiones en numerosas ocasiones, a saber en HSBC Finance Corporation v. Clear Blue Sky Inc. and Domain Manager,
Caso OMPI No. D2007-0062 (), al sostener que: “Further, while both “credit” and “keeper” may be generic in the sense that they are dictionary words, the USPTO’s registration of the CREDITKEEPER mark on its principal register constitutes an official determination that the mark is not descriptive with respect to the debt deferment and credit reporting services for which it was registered. Given the USPTO’s determination, the Panel entertains serious doubt whether the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to advertise credit-related services of a similar nature constitutes the use of the domain name in a descriptive as opposed to a trademark sense.”
...
2011-06-06 - Case Details
Der streitige Domainname wurde durch den Gesuchgegner am 14. Januar 2011 registriert. Der Domain-Name führt zu einer Webseite mit gesponserten Links, welche die Gesuchstellerin betreffen und der folgenden Nachricht „Die Domain könnte zum Verkauf stehen. Klicken Sie hier für Informationen zu dieser Domain“ (Im Original: „The domain instagram.ch may be for sale. Click here to inquire about this domain“).
...
2016-12-05 - Case Details
page 3
Deuxièmement, pendant que la procédure française évoquée au paragraphe précédent était encore en
cours, le Requérant a introduit en avril 2018 une action en justice à l’encontre du Défendeur et autres devant
la District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, notamment sur le fondement d’actes allégués de
recapture illicite du nom de domaine litigieux (“Reverse Domain Name Hijacking”). Ce tribunal fédéral ayant
refusé de faire droit à l’exception d’immunité juridictionnelle des Etats étrangers soulevée par le Défendeur,
ce dernier a formé un recours devant la Court of Appeals of the Fourth Circuit. ...(1) La procédure abusive est prévue au paragraphe 15(e) des Règles d’application selon lequel “Si, au vu
des éléments qui lui ont été soumis, la commission constate que la plainte a été introduite de mauvaise foi,
par exemple dans une tentative de recapture illicite de nom de domaine (“Reverse Domain Name
Hijacking”), ou qu'elle l'a été principalement dans le but de harceler le détenteur du nom de domaine, la
commission déclare dans sa décision que la plainte a été introduite de mauvaise foi et constitue un abus de
procédure administrative”.
...
2022-09-16 - Case Details
Reynaldo Urtiaga Escobar
Experto Único
Fecha: 13 de enero de 2016
1 En el cual la mayoría del Grupo de Expertos hizo los siguientes comentarios a propósito del secuestro a la inversa del nombre de dominio por parte del hoy Promovente: “On the one hand, the case was always very dubious because the disputed domain name consists of the essentially common word “libertad” in the Spanish language, the equivalent of “liberty” in the English language, a word that invokes the very notion of liberty that the Internet has promoted. As such, it was always an uphill battle to show that a domain name adopting such a generic notion could ever be found to be abusive.”
2 Piénsese por ejemplo en términos semejantes a libertad como democracia, derecho, persona, trabajo, propiedad, etc. ...
2016-01-22 - Case Details
D2005-1072 se estableció: “the website attracts Internet users by virtue of Complainant's name and then uses that name as a vehicle to send users to other commercial sites, either for the benefit of Respondent or others to whom Respondent's website contains links. ...Respondent's website is otherwise, and this Panel finds that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith”....
2009-05-26 - Case Details
No obstante, es
incumbencia de un promovente proporcionar en el idioma aplicable argumentos claros y elaborados, conforme a la Política y el
Reglamento.
4Véase 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”.
5Múltiples decisiones han sostenido que resulta difícil para la parte promovente acreditar hechos negativos, por lo que si ésta acredita
prima facie el extremo requerido, corresponde al titular demostrar derechos o intereses legítimos en el nombre de dominio en disputa.
...
2025-06-20 - Case Details
DMX2019-0028: “Los correos
electrónicos que se han enviado desde la dirección que incorpora al nombre de dominio en disputa del Titular, han creado la falsa
impresión de que estos fueron mandados por las Promoventes, lo cual conforma una conducta de confusión por asociación”. Véase
también Syngenta Participations AG v. Guillaume Texier, Gobain ltd, Caso OMPI No. D2017-1147: “A registrant cannot acquire rights
or legitimate interests by the use of a domain name as an email address from which to send phishing emails”.
4Múltiples decisiones han sostenido que resulta difícil para la parte promovente acreditar hechos negativos, por lo que si ésta acredita
prima facie el extremo requerido, le corresponde al titular demostrar sus derechos o intereses legítimos en el nombre de dominio en
disputa. ...D2021-3924, se estableció: “the mere presence of mail servers and SPF records represents a severe risk
of phishing or other fraudulent and abusive activities [...] it is rather difficult to imagine that mail server attached to disputed domain
name would be used for any good faith purposes”.
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?...
2024-10-07 - Case Details
Le Défendeur demande dès lors que cette
tentative du Requérant soit considérée et qualifiée de cas de “Reverse Domain Name Hijacking”.
Le paragraphe 15(e) des Règles d’application prévoit que “Si, au vu des éléments qui lui ont été soumis, la
commission constate que la plainte a été introduite de mauvaise foi, par exemple dans une tentative de
s’approprier illicitement le nom de domaine (‘Reverse Domain Name Hijacking’), ou qu’elle l’a été
principalement dans le but de harceler le détenteur du nom de domaine, la commission déclare dans sa
décision que la plainte a été introduite de mauvaise foi et constitue un abus de procédure administrative”.
...La Commission administrative rejette dès lors la demande du
Défendeur quant au prétendu “Reverse Domain Name Hijacking”.
7. Décision
Pour les raisons exposées ci-dessus, la Commission administrative rejette la plainte.
...
2023-10-13 - Case Details
DEU2020-0001:
The Complainant is KPMG International Cooperative, Netherlands, and the Respondent is Montet Gilles, France, owning the European Union Trade Mark registration No. 001011220 for KPMG, registered on April 25, 2000.
The disputed domain name is . The disputed domain name was registered on August 21, 2019 and was resolving to a parking page. On August 26, 2019, it was used for fraudulent email purposes.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark KPMG registered in the European Union; the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and, the disputed domain name was registered as well as used in bad faith.
...
2020-05-12 - Case Details
Sie sei unter anderem auch am Aufbau eines Schweizer Radiosenders unter dem Name „Radio ONE-O-FIVE“ beteiligt gewesen und sei zudem Hauptaktionärin der Schweizer Gesellschaft „Music First Network AG“, welche diesen Sender betrieb. ...Entscheidungsgründe
Gemäss Paragraph 24(c) des Verfahrensreglements gibt der Experte dem Gesuch statt, wenn die Registrierung oder Verwendung des Domain-Namens eine klare Verletzung eines Kennzeichenrechts darstellt, das dem Gesuchsteller nach dem Recht der Schweiz oder Liechtenstein zusteht.
...
2015-01-08 - Case Details
Volgens vaste rechtspraak onder de Regeling kan aan het country code Top-Level Domain “.nl” voorbij worden gegaan bij de beoordeling van de overeenstemming tussen de Domeinnaam enerzijds en het merk van Eiser anderzijds, aangezien dit een technisch registratievereiste is (zie, Roompot Recreatie Beheer B.V. v. ...Oosterbaan
Geschillenbeslechter
Datum: 27 november 2019
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. ...
2019-12-03 - Case Details
Bununla birlikte Archipelago Holdings LLC v. Creative Genius Domain Sales and Robert Aragon d/b/a Creative Genius Domain Name Sales,
WIPO Dava No. ...Aynı veya İltibas Oluşturacak Kadar Benzer Marka
Pek çok UDRP hakem kararlarında EPSON markasının tanınmış bir marka olduğuna değinilmiştir; see e.g. Epson Europe BV v. Armitage,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0995; EPSON Europe BV v. Costas Ioannou,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0816. Hakem ayrıca EPSON’nın pazardaki yeri ve elektronik parçaları sektöründeki bilinirliğini de not etmektedir. ...
2011-09-27 - 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 See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, Caso OMPI No. ...
2022-11-10 - Case Details
b) Derechos o intereses legítimo del Demandado respecto del nombre de dominio en disputa
De conformidad con el párrafo 4(c) de la Política, las siguientes circunstancias pueden servir para demostrar
derechos o intereses legítimos del Demandado en el nombre de dominio en disputa:
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 See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, Caso OMPI No. ...
2022-10-25 - 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.”
4See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, Caso OMPI No. ...
2024-06-06 - Case Details