The Respondent has intentionally excluded the letter “a” after the letter “g” in , while knowingly misspelling by not including the letter “a” after the letter “g” and omitting the letter “s” before the letter “f”.
Complainant further submits that Respondent's deliberate misspelling of Complainant's common law trademarks further supports a finding of confusion, as it constitutes direct evidence of an intent on the part of the Respondent to deceive the public. ...
2009-05-06 - 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
Accordingly, NYIS’s domain name in issue violates Policy, Paragraph 4(a)(ii).15
f. Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Registration and use of the domain name in issue in bad faith are matters of the appropriate inferences to draw from circumstantial evidence. ...
2000-12-11 - Case Details
I am exercising my right to publish either critical or positive commentary
about the Michelin Star Restaurants and that I can not do so without making
reference to Michelin (Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp. v. Faber, 29
F. Supp. 2d 1161 (C.D. Cal. 1998)
I have also stated that the Site is of a noncommercial nature and that the
underlying story constitutes to "Fair use"
As I expressed earlier in my response to the allegations of bad faith I feel
that in this whole affair only one has acted in "bad faith" and that
is Michelin!
...
2001-06-29 - Case Details
A Response was received from the Respondent on April 9, 2001, (according to Paragraph 2.f(iii) of the Rules, the Response is deemed to have been received in due time). On the same date Acknowledgement of Receipt of Response was sent to the Complainant and to the Respondent using the same contact details and methods as were used for the Notification of Complaint and Commencement of the Administrative Proceeding.
...
2001-06-29 - Case Details
The Complainant further
contends that the domain name was acquired primarily for the purposes of selling,
renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the owner
of the trademark, because -
f)At the time of the
Tweenies launch there was extensive press coverage of the product. However,
prior to the launch there were a considerable number of press leaks and stories
relating to the Tweenies in the national press creating a reputation in Tweenies
before the program was first broadcast. ...
2001-07-12 - Case Details
Con fecha de 15 de marzo de 2001, el Centro dirigió un correo electrónico al representante autorizado del Demandante por el que le ponía de manifiesto, tras el examen formal de la Demanda que no se habían presentado las copias exigidas por el Parágrafo 3.c) del Reglamento Adicional en relación con el Parágrafo 3.f) del Reglamento, así como la ubicación real del Registrador del nombre de dominio disputado.
En fecha de 16 de marzo de 2001, el representante autorizado del Demandante procedió a dar respuesta al anterior comunicado del Centro, manifestando la subsanación de los errores advertidos.
...
2001-06-18 - Case Details
Bel Arbor / Domain Admin, PrivacyProtect.org,
Caso OMPI No. D2012-0875; Ver también F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Bargin Register, Inc. - Client Services,
Caso OMPI No. D2012-0474.
5 “Is the Respondent required to adduce any such evidence, if the onus is on the Complainant to prove the three elements of paragraph 4 of the Policy? ...
2019-01-08 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
In view of Respondents failure to submit any Response, the Panel shall decide this administrative
proceeding on the basis of Complainant’s undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and
15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the
Rules. ...
2022-08-12 - Case Details
Reverse Domain-Name Hijacking (“RDNH”)
Paragraph 15(e) of the Rules provides that, “[i]f after considering the submissions the Panel finds that the
complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at RDNH 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”. ...
2023-04-04 - Case Details
Respondent submits that Complainant advertises a competing vanity e-mail service at the webpage for . Attached as Exhibit F to the Response. A search for the URL “http://www.lomonaco.net” on September 20, 2005, showed a home page identified by the NET IDENTITY trademark. ...
2005-12-21 - Case Details
No. 2671225 showing it was registered pursuant to Section 2(f) of the Trademark Act and so “was deemed descriptive but permitted to be registered based on acquired distinctiveness”. ...
2008-06-05 - Case Details
The concept of a domain
name "being used in bad faith" is not limited to positive action –
inaction is within the concept (citing WIPO
Case D2000-0003: Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows,
and WIPO Case D2000-0400: CBS Broadcasting
Inc v. Dennis Toeppen)).
f. The foregoing acts and conduct of the Respondent have been calculated to deceive and mislead or are likely to deceive and mislead the trade and public into a belief that the domain name is that of the Complainant or is otherwise associated, affiliated, or connected with or to the Complainant.
...
2004-01-26 - Case Details
Where relevant these cases are discussed below.
F. Respondent’s Second Supplementary Filing
In this unsolicited supplemental filing, the Respondent sent an email that stated “Dear sir/ma'am
We had read in Economics Times this today on dated 27th May, 2023 about merger of two entities, and
enclosing the same for your acknowledgement. ...
2023-06-02 - Case Details
Complainant contends Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain
Name. According to WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5, “[f]undamentally, a respondent’s use of a domain
name will not be considered ‘fair’ if it falsely suggests affiliation with the trademark owner.” ...
2024-04-10 - Case Details