Respondent has used the Domain Name for approximately 2 years and 3 months f to host its
website, which is clearl...
2025-12-19 - Case Details
D2009-1416; People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Doughney, 263 F.3d 359 (4th Cir. 2001).
The Panel...
2016-01-11 - Case Details
Registered or Used in Bad Faith
As an alternative to proving that the disputed domain name was registered without rights or legitimate
interests, the ADR Rules, paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(iii) provides that the Complainant shall prove that the
disputed domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.
The ADR Rules, paragraph B(11)(f) provides a nonexclusive list of circumstances that may constitute
evidence of the registration or use of a domain name in bad faith.
...
2024-09-25 - Case Details
In order to find rights or legitimate interests in a domain name based on its dictionary meaning, the domain name should be genuinely used, or at least demonstrably intended for such use, in connection with the relied-upon dictionary meaning and not to trade off third-party trademark rights.”
Moreover, section 2.10.2 provides that “[f]or a respondent to have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name comprising an acronym, the respondent’s evidence supporting its explanation for its registration (and any use) of the domain name should indicate a credible and legitimate intent which does not capitalize on the reputation and goodwill inherent in the complainant’s mark.”
...
2018-02-05 - Case Details
Sol Muntañola como Panelistas y señalando el 8 de Noviembre del 2001, como la fecha para la emisión de la decisión del Panel, notificando lo anterior de conformidad con los párrafos 6 (f) y 15 (b) de las Reglas. En la misma fecha, la OMPI transfirió el expediente del caso a los suscritos Panelistas.
...
2002-02-06 - Case Details
The Administrative Panel, consisting of Austin NeeAbeohe Evans Amissah of 1 Westgate Terrace, London SW10 9BT, United Kingdom as Presiding Panelist; Jonathan Hudis of Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, PC, 1755 Jefferson Davis Highway – Fourth Floor, Arlington, Virginia 22202, USA as Panelist; and Maninder Singh of Singh & Singh, Advocates, F-12, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi – 110014, India as Panelist, was appointed on November 16, 2000, and the case file to date was duly transmitted by courier to members of the Administrative Panel.
...
2000-12-13 - Case Details
Summary of the approach
6.48 In summary, and without intending to limit further development of the applicable principles or the evaluation of other factors indicated by the facts of different cases (see also the Chelsea and Westminster case, supra), this Panel suggests that a registrant of a domain name is likely to have a right or legitimate interest in a domain name which is identical or confusingly similar to a mark of another party in accordance with paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy if the following conditions are met:
(a) the domain name has been registered and is being used genuinely for the purpose of criticising the owner of the mark;
(b) the registrant believes the criticism to be well-founded;
(c) the registrant has no intent for commercial gain;
(d) it is immediately apparent to Internet users visiting the website at the domain name that it is not a website of the owner of the mark;
(e) the respondent has not registered all or most of the obvious domain names suitable for the owner of the mark;
(f) where the domain name is one of the obvious domain names suitable for the owner of the mark, a prominent and appropriate link is provided to the latter’s website (if any);
(g) where there is a likelihood that email intended for the complainant will be sent using the domain name in issue, senders are immediately alerted in an appropriate way that their emails have been misaddressed.
...
2008-03-13 - Case Details
The
present case is not the same as the facts decided in Dr. Ing.. h .c. F. Porsche
AG v. Del Fabbro Laurent, WIPO Case No.
D2004-0481, where the domain name in dispute was
and where the Respondent used the domain name exclusively
in relation to resale of PORSCHE used cars. ...
2004-12-07 - Case Details
在创立时，第二投诉人原名为 Cheung Kong Real Estate Agency Limited，经过数次的名称更改后，第二投诉人现名为长江实业地产发展有限公司(Cheung Kong Property Development Limited)「见投诉书附件F和G」。
第一和第二投诉人在下文皆统称为 “投诉人”。
根据投诉人提交的证据，投诉人并未在世界上任何地区就任何类别的商品或服务提交申请或注册了长实及/或长实集团的商标。
第一被投诉人于2006年4月19日注册了争议域名。 ...
2009-06-19 - Case Details
In the Internet context, consumers are aware that domain names for different websites are often quite similar and that small differences matter. See Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, 279 F.3d 1135, 1147 (9th Cir. 2002). The omission of the letter “s” from the mark is one of those small differences that matters in this context.”
...
2009-02-12 - Case Details
センターからの問い合わせに対し、この3名は、受諾声明並びに公平及び独立に関する宣言をセンターに提出したので、センターは、道垣内正人を首席パネリストとし、北川善太郎及び土井輝生をパネリストとして指名した。センターは、4月18日、手続規則第6条(f)により、両当事者に対して、首席パネリスト及びパネリストの指名結果とともに、パネルは例外的な状況が生じない限り、5月2日までに裁定を下す旨を通知した。
本件ドメイン名の登録合意書は日本語で作成されており、日本語以外の言語を用いる旨の当事者間の合意も登録合意書の定めはなく、パネルも別段の決定をする必要ないと判断するので、手続規則第11条(a)により、本件手続及び裁定は日本語により行われる。
...
2006-05-11 - Case Details
e)www.tanishq.co does not lead to an active website.
(f) www.tanishq.biz does not lead to an active website.
(g) www.tanishq.shop This domain name is offered for sale on the site through Go Daddy, so its role in the global presence of the complainant must be limited. ...
2021-09-16 - Case Details
e) 专家组认为在衡量是否可以或应该在行政程序中使用非注册协议采用的语言时，要考虑到双方的情况和案件的需要而作出对双方公平的裁决。
(f) 尽管投诉人主张行政程序的语言应该为英文，但是鉴于(i)投诉人是中国大型企业，当然有能力而事实上也已经将英文投诉书翻译成中文；(ii)投诉人请求将英文作为行政程序的语言，但是却没有提出任何理由支持其主张；及(iii)被投诉人坚持要求将中文即注册协议使用的语言作为行政程序的语言，所以专家组认为使用中文作为此行政程序的语言更为合适，更能体现公平公正的精神。
...
2017-03-14 - Case Details
In these circumstances, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has failed to prove that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith and the Complaint therefore fails.
F. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Paragraph 15(e) of the Rules provides that, if “after considering the submissions the Panel finds that the complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or was brought primarily to harass the domain-name holder, the Panel shall declare in its decision that the complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding”. ...
2016-09-06 - Case Details
Nothing would be easier for Respondent than denying any connection with the offers.
f) The “leak episode” evoked by Respondent indicates that a close relationship exists between the author of the offers to Complainant and Respondent. ...
2017-06-08 - Case Details
e) 专家组认为在衡量是否可以或应该在行政程序中使用非注册协议采用的语言时，要考虑到双方的情况和案件的需要而作出对双方公平的裁决。
(f) 尽管投诉人主张行政程序的语言应该为英文，但是鉴于(i)投诉人是中国大型企业，当然有能力而事实上也已经将英文投诉书翻译成中文；(ii)投诉人请求将英文作为行政程序的语言，但是却没有提出任何理由支持其主张；(iii)被投诉人要求将中文即注册协议使用的语言作为行政程序的语言；及(iv)被投诉人选择自行答辩，所以专家组认为使用中文作为此行政程序的语言更为合适，更能体现公平公正的精神。
...
2017-03-15 - Case Details
D2005-1229, “The test of confusing similarity under the Policy is confined to a comparison of the disputed domain name and the trademark alone, independent of the other marketing and use factors, such as the “Sleekcraft factors” – AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341,346 (9th Cir. 1979) – which usually are considered in trademark infringement or unfair competition cases.”
...
2009-09-25 - Case Details