The Complainant also knows that the Respondent has significant reach and influence in this area (including running a Facebook page with over 32,000 followers). The Complaint is merely an attempt to suppress criticism of the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse.
6. ...
2018-12-17 - Case Details
The Respondent also maintains he has previously utilized the phrase “Austin proper” in his real estate business activities, and provides a Facebook posting referring to a condominium for sale for under USD 200,000 in Austin proper.
The Respondent denies that he was attempting to create an impression of association with the Complainant when registering the disputed domain names. ...
2019-05-22 - Case Details
The registrants of the domain names and and the holders of “glovo” accounts on Facebook and Instagram are all third parties as well. Although the Complainant may be the holder of the Twitter account named “glovo”, it has sent only nine tweets from that account compared to over 9000 tweets sent from its account named “Glovo_ES”. ...
2019-10-10 - Case Details
Como ha sido establecido en previas decisiones, el uso de un nombre de dominio por quien lo registra de mala fe y sin derecho o interés legítimo alguno, debe reputarse igualmente como de mala fe, puesto que asumir una solución distinta resultaría absolutamente contradictorio, Facebook Inc. e. Usta Cafer,
Caso OMPI No. DES2009-0006.
Expresa el Promovente que los nombres de dominios en conflicto impiden al Promovente plasmar sus marcas en TLDs mexicanos, lo que no puede ser un uso de buena fe por parte del Titular. ...
2010-03-11 - Case Details
In addition, consumers can become a fan of Cadillac on Facebook, and view the official Cadillac blog which features product news, announcements and commentary from the designers, engineers and team members that bring Cadillac vehicles to life.
...
2010-02-23 - Case Details
It is also alleged and not disputed that Respondent and its affiliates have Facebook pages which refer to Complainant’s resorts. Again, Complainant notes, Respondent and its affiliates make no attempt to distinguish themselves from Complainant; rather, “they take pains to connect themselves with Complainant for the purpose of misleading customers to the mistaken impression that the Outrigger Vacation Club is associated with or endorsed by Complainant.”
...
2011-03-16 - Case Details
Most of the panels appointed under the Policy including the three member panel in Facebook, Inc. v. Majid Karimian Ghannad,
WIPO Case No. DIR2009-0001, have relied on earlier UDRP decisions. ...
2011-01-27 - Case Details
In these circumstances, registration of six
disputed domain names incorporating Complainant’s well-known GFS Marks or the GORDON FOOD
SERVICE Mark points to registration in bad faith. See Facebook, Inc. v. Ricky Bhatia, WIPO Case No.
D2017-2542.
Bad faith use is also clear from Respondent’s conduct as discussed in section 6.B. ...
2025-05-08 - Case Details
The Complainant also
operates pages on various social media platforms, particularly Facebook (nearly 32 million followers),
Instagram (7 million followers), and X (5 million followers), where the UNIVERSAL Trademark is extensively
used and promoted.
...
2024-08-27 - Case Details
c) The Respondent’s service has been featured in over 3,500 Trustpilot reviews; 3,600+ Facebook
followers; 5,900+ X (formerly Twitter) followers; 2,700+ Instagram followers; 3,600+ Discord members;
2,100+ YouTube subscribers; and 10+ million lifetime website visitors.
...
2025-09-01 - Case Details
The Complainant produces European Union Intellectual Property Office Decision on Cancellation, number C
54 596, dated May 16, 2024, which mentions the following evidence that the Complainant submitted in
seeking an application for a declaration of invalidity in respect of a European Union registered trademark with
which the present proceeding is not directly concerned: (1) Extracts from the Complainant’s website
showing products offered for sale under the LEDGER trademark; (2) French press releases and articles
referring to the Complainant’s LEDGER trademark including (i) an article published on the website
“www.bitcoin.fr” dating from May 2018 which mentions the Complainant’s “growing reputation”, (ii) an article
published on the website “www.francebleu.fr” dating from October 2018 in which the Complainant is
described as a world leader in the field of cryptocurrencies, due to its secure applications, (iii) articles in the
magazine “L’Express” and on the corresponding website dating from December 2020, describing the
Complainant as “the French star of the cryptocurrency world”, which has “succeeded in making its digital
wallet a global reference”, with thousands of manufactured wallets sent to more than 150 countries, and
sales of over 2.3 million digital wallets, “making it the world leader in the sector”, (iv) an article in the
magazine “L’Express” dating from June 2021 in which the Complainant is described as having just raised
USD 380 million, (v) an article published on a website entitled “Les Echos” dating from June 2021, which
describes the Complainant as “the new French cryptocurrency unicorn” and “a global heavyweight in the
cryptocurrency ecosystem”, (vi) an article published on a website entitled “Le Parisien” dating from June
2021, describing the Complainant’s fundraising as the second largest in FrenchTech history, adding that the
Complainant is valued at EUR 1.2 billion, and (vii) a compilation of press articles dating from between 2019
and 2021 in both English and French language media referring to the Complainant’s fundraising
announcements; and (3) extracts dated May 2022 of the Complainant’s social media pages showing that the
Complainant has garnered 50,000 “likes” on “Facebook”, 95,000 followers on “Instagram”, and 335,000
followers on “Twitter” (now “X”).
On the strength of this, and certain other evidence, the said Decision considered it to be confirmed that the
Complainant’s LEDGER trademark had a reputation before August 14, 2020, and noted that besides the
evidence referring to cryptocurrency wallets and safes, the Complainant’s application “Ledger Live”, being a
desktop and mobile crypto management app had more than 1.5 million monthly users before June 2021.
...
2025-04-02 - Case Details
The Complainant filed trademark infringement claims with Meta that temporarily disrupted the
Respondent’s Instagram and Facebook accounts, as well as its YouTube channel. However, after submitting
evidence of its trademark rights, all services to the Respondent were restored.
...
2025-04-25 - Case Details
The Panel has only been able to find two prior cases that substantively dealt with defences based on
genuine cybersecurity endeavours, specifically:
Facebook, Inc. and Instagram, LLC v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Phishing Operations,
Wombat Security Technologies, WIPO Case No. ...
2026-03-09 - Case Details
In any event
the “double tick” element in the logos is not unique. For example, both Facebook and WhatsApp use them to
denote that a message that has been read and such usage is commonplace and not relevant to this
complaint.
...
2025-08-26 - Case Details
The Complainant has a significant online presence across multiple social media platforms such as Facebook
Brazil and LinkedIn Global which are followed by millions of users worldwide.
The disputed domain name was registered on March 31, 2025. ...
2025-09-05 - Case Details
There are over 200,000 listings of people and businesses in the “Super White Pages” and thousands of people on Facebook all using “Tiryaki” as part of their name. A Google search for the term, excluding the Complainant, brings up over 1.6 million results.
...
2015-03-25 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that it has expended more than USD 400,000 in promoting the mark in print and online advertisements, and has conspicuously displayed the mark in its business cards, signage, invoices, trailer decals, and on its Facebook page. The Complainant maintains that such efforts have resulted in widespread consumer recognition of the mark and sales exceeding USD 23 million.
...
2013-09-18 - Case Details
En este sentido, es práctica reiterada de los Expertos del Centro que el registro de un nombre de dominio ha sido realizado de mala fe si la Titular lo hizo conociendo la existencia previa de una marca (Facebook Inc. v. Usta Cafer,
Caso OMPI No. DES2009-0006; y Edintorni Europe SRL v. New Business Synergies, S.L.,
Caso OMPI No. ...
2013-05-08 - Case Details
En este sentido, es práctica reiterada de los expertos del Centro considerar que el registro de un nombre de dominio ha sido realizado de mala fe si el titular lo hizo conociendo la existencia previa de una marca (ver Facebook Inc. v. UstaCafer,
Caso OMPI No. DES2009-0006; Cederroth Ibérica S.A.U. v. Jesús VidrialesFrancho; y EdintorniEurope SRL v. ...
2012-11-23 - Case Details
Leo van den Akker,
Caso OMPI No. DES2009-0020 o en el caso Facebook Inc. c. Usta Cafer,
Caso OMPI No. DES2009-0006. Y en la misma línea se muestran los grupos de expertos que aplican la Política UDRP en la que se inspira el Reglamento (por ejemplo, casos Soria Natural, SA y Vicenc Roig Ribas,
Caso OMPI No. ...
2015-08-13 - Case Details