The Respondent additionally set up an unlawful Facebook account under the name “LaPraire”, using without consent the La Prairie logo.
Finally, the Complainant submits that the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name constitutes bad faith, since the Respondent is creating a confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks and tries to deceive customers. ...The Respondent’s use of the Domain Name and the registration of a false Facebook account using the Complainant’s logo, makes it clear that the Respondent’s intention was to deceive customers of the Complainant. ...
2020-01-31 - Case Details
As of April 21, 2009 the Complainant became the largest application developer on Facebook.
The Complainant registered the domain name on November 2, 2007 which it uses to host a website to communicate to the public about Zynga Games. ...The Complainant also makes use of the Mark when it distributes games on social networks such as Facebook. At Exhibit 9 to the Complaint is evidence of the Mark affixed to the home page of one of its poker games. ...
2009-08-04 - Case Details
Policy, paragraphs 4(a) and (b); WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.2 (famous mark a respondent cannot credibly claim not to have known); Facebook, Inc. v. te5gfh gtfghbfh,
WIPO Case No. D2018-2433.
Here, the Respondent has not even submitted a response to the Complaint. ...attracting visitors by creating confusion with a famous trademark); Facebook, Inc. v. te5gfh gtfghbfh,
WIPO Case No. D2018-2433.
Accordingly, the Complainant has proven the third element, namely, that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
7. ...
2019-04-05 - Case Details
Both of the Complainants are companies that are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Facebook, Inc. and argue that as one of the reasons why they have jointly filed the Complaint and submitted in these proceedings a request for consolidation of their dispute.
...<facebook-pages.com> and ) which is not bona fide”. Also see, for example, Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. v. ...
2019-03-15 - Case Details
From at least 2015, it appears that the Respondent was operating his car yard under the name “Rent 2 Buy”. While the Facebook page the Respondent submitted in the Response suggested that his Facebook page was operated under the name “Afterpay Cars” from December 2015, the Complainant’s supplemental filing pointed out that, when a Facebook user changes the name of their account, the page “updates” so that all posts on the page display the new name. ...The Respondent has also submitted a number of electronic communications on his Facebook page and in his Gmail account illustrating his use of terms like “rent2buy”, “buy now pay after”, “rent it, like it, $1 buy it”, and “buy now pay later” from 2015 onwards. ...
2020-04-16 - Case Details
Upon information and belief, the only way to register for the site was through Facebook. By registering through Facebook, Respondent required would-be users to grant him access to sensitive personal data, including: name, Facebook profile picture, gender, Facebook user ID, lists of “friends” on Facebook, email addresses, and birthday. ...
2011-08-03 - Case Details
Если доменное имя полностью включает торговую марку, то такое доменное имя обычно считается идентичным или сходным до степени смешения для целей Политики .UA (см., например, Facebook Inc. v. Private Registration / Denis Khakimov,Дело ВОИС № DUA2019-0002). Административная Комиссия установила, что в данном деле спорное доменное имя полностью включает торговую марку Заявителя.
Национальный домен верхнего уровня «.com.ua» рассматривается как стандартное регистрационное требование и не учитывается при установлении сходства (см., например, Facebook Inc. v. Private Registration / Denis Khakimov, Дело ВОИС № DUA2019-0002).
С учетом изложенного Административная Комиссия установила, что спорное доменное имя является идентичным с торговой маркой Заявителя, соответственно, Жалоба удовлетворяет требованиям параграфа 4(a)(i) Политики .UA.
...
2021-03-02 - Case Details
Since its launch in 2010, the Complainant has rapidly acquired
and developed considerable goodwill and renown worldwide. Acquired by Facebook, Inc. (now Meta
Platforms, Inc.) in 2012, today the Complainant has more than 2 billion monthly active accounts worldwide.
...The Complainant has also made substantial investments to
develop a strong presence online by being active on various social-media platforms, including Facebook,
Twitter, and LinkedIn. For instance, the Complainant’s official Facebook page has over 61 million Facebook
“likes”, and the Complainant’s official Twitter account has over 33 million followers.
...
2024-11-11 - Case Details
A further trade mark application for PUNKTURED in additional classes, also filed by a director of the Complainant, has recently been accepted for registration by the Australian Trade Marks Office.
The Complainant has a Facebook page at “www.facebook.com/punkturedbodypiercing”. As at October 17, 2013, the PUNKTURED Facebook page had 674 likes. ...In addition to the registered Australian trade mark for PUNKTURED in Class 42 and the pending application for PUNKTURED in additional classes, the Complainant asserts that it makes extensive use of PUNKTURED on, for example, swingtags, soft goods and apparel as well as on in store signage, on vehicles and online at its Facebook page. In addition, the Complainant says that it spends approximately AUD 200,000 on promotional discounts and giveaways promoting the PUNKTURED trade mark.
...
2014-03-03 - Case Details
In accordance with section 4.8 of WIPO Overview 3.0, and with a view to eliciting some further information
regarding the nature of the Respondent’s apparent business and the original selection of its name, the Panel
carried out some Google searches and found the following:
1. A Facebook page at “www.facebook.com/tuvpakistan” created in 2016, branded “TUV Pakistan Third
Party Inspection” and bearing the same TUVPAK logo that was on the website at the disputed domain
name. ...Given the volume
and nature of the Respondent’s Facebook posts, together with associated photographs including personnel
wearing merchandise branded with TUVPAK logo plus the disputed domain name, and despite the
dubiousness of some of the claims on the Respondent’s website, it seems highly unlikely that the Facebook
page was designed to project a fake business. ...
2023-03-16 - Case Details
基本事实
投诉人 Meta Platforms, Inc.是一家全球知名的社交技术公司，前身为 Facebook Inc.（Facebook）并在 2021
年 10 月正式更名为 Meta，引起全世界（包括中国在内）的广泛关注和报道。
投诉人旗下的 Facebook 平台成立于 2004 年，其提供的社交网络服务全球知名。尽管 Facebook 网站目前无
法在中国使用，投诉人提供的服务在中国受到媒体（包括人民日报等官方媒体）的广泛报道。
投诉人在包括中国在内的多个国家或地区注册了多件 META 商标，至少包括：
- 2018 年 8 月 28 日在美利坚合众国注册并于 2021 年 10 月 26 日转让给投诉人的第 5548121 号 META
商标；
- 2022 年 1 月 28 日在中国注册的第 58212085 号 META 商标；
- 2022 年 1 月 28 日在中国注册的第 58232627 号 META 商标；
- 2022 年 1 月 28 日在中国注册的第 58225856 号 META 商标。
...
2024-04-10 - Case Details
Factual Background
The Complainant is a United States social technology company that operates, inter alia, Facebook,
Instagram and WhatsApp. The Complainant’s Facebook platform was founded in 2004 and today is one of
the leading providers of online social media and social networking services, being its
website and application (“app”) constantly ranked amongst the most visited websites and most downloaded
apps in the world.
The Complainant’s Facebook social network is commonly referred to as “FB” (as can be seen in international
publications such as The New York Times, “Generation FB”, dated June 23, 2011). ...
2023-04-25 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
行政专家组裁决
Facebook Technologies, LLC 诉 曹丛刚（Cao Cong Gang）
案件编号：DCN2019-0015
1. 当事人双方
本案投诉人是Facebook Technologies, LLC，其位于美利坚合众国。...专家组按中心为确保《程序规则》第二十九条得到遵守所规定的要求，提交了《接受书和公正独立声明》。
4. 基本事实
投诉人是Facebook, Inc.旗下的子公司，主要研发推出虚拟现实产品。前身为 Oculus VR, LLC，2014年被Facebook, Inc.收购后，于2018年更名重组。投诉人通过其官方网站 “www.oculus.com” 营销其产品。
...
2020-02-20 - Case Details
The Disputed Domain Name does not resolve to an active website but the Respondent maintains a Facebook page which references the Disputed Domain Name and show its use by the Respondent in email addresses. ...The Complainant says the use of a copy of its logo on the Respondent’s Facebook page clearly shows an intention to confuse.
B. Respondent
The Center received an email from a Dr. ...
2019-12-10 - Case Details
xvii The Respondent No. 2 is related to the Respondent No. 1 as the disputed domain name adopted by Respondent No. 2 is identical to the name of the organization of Respondent No. 1 JEEVANSAATHY and the telephone number, email addresses mentioned on the webpage of "www.jeevansaathy.com" is identical to registrants contact number mentioned in the WhoIs reports for and of Respondent No. 1.
xviii The Facebook icon on Respondent No. 1's website "www.jeevansathi.expert" when clicked, redirects to a Facebook page that is named "jeevansaathy.com" and the contact details show details of the Respondent No. 2 in addition to the Facebook profile linked to the Respondent No. 2's website being identical to that linked to website of the Respondent No. 1.
...c) Trademark application applied by the Respondent No. 1 is for the mark being used by the Respondent No. 2 - JEEVANSAATHY.COM under Class 45.
(d) Facebook link provided by the Respondent No. 1 () redirects to Facebook page of Respondent No. 2.
...
2016-09-20 - Case Details
D2021-2193
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Facebook Technologies, LLC, United States of America (“United States” or “USA”), represented by Hogan Lovells (Paris) LLP, France.
...Factual Background
The Complainant is a subsidiary of Facebook, Inc., having operated until 2018 under the corporate name of its predecessor in interest, Oculus VR LLC, which was acquired by Facebook in March 2014.
...
2021-09-23 - Case Details
The Complainant maintains a website at “www.crispy-bird.com”, and promotes its CRISPY BIRD restaurant on social media, including Twitter, Facebook and Instagram pages. The Complainant asserts first use of both marks in commerce on May 11, 2016. ...The Complainant, still concerned that the Respondent was affiliated with the Facebook page, filed a takedown complaint with Facebook. On November 7, 2016, Facebook removed the page as being in violation of Facebook’s policies. ...
2018-03-06 - Case Details
Factual Background
The Complainant is a United States company, founded in 2010 and acquired by Facebook, Inc. in 2012. It operates globally providing an online mobile photo and video sharing social networking application (or “app”) that allows users across the globe to edit and share photos/videos and exchange messages in an online social network, via smartphones including iOS and Android operating systems. ...The Complainant has also made substantial investments to develop a strong presence online by being active on various social media forums (including Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn), for instance its official page has over 60 million likes on Facebook, and over 36 million followers on Twitter. ...
2020-01-09 - Case Details
The Panel reviewed the print-outs of representative pages of the website to which the domain name resolves, as well as the Complainant’s Facebook company page and its P90X® and P90X2® product pages on Facebook, submitted by the Complainant as Annex D to the Complaint. ...On the other hand, the Complainant provided sufficient evidence to show that it has established a significant business in the field of in-home health, wellness, weight loss, and fitness solutions and that its P90X branded goods and services have been quite successful and popular among the relevant consumer segment due to heavy marketing and promotion, including through such channels as company and product websites (including “www.beachbody.com“ and “www.p90x.com“), its Facebook company and product pages and other Internet-based advertising, among other efforts.
Finally, the evidence of the content available on the website under the disputed domain name , provided by the Complainant in Annex L to the Complaint, indicates that the Respondent uses the website at the disputed domain name to promote products and services competitive to those offered by the Complainant and to profit from click-through commissions through Google’s “Adsense” program.
...
2012-07-26 - Case Details
Its Facebook profile indicates that the company produces stainless steel hookahs and accessories. Prior to the filing of the Complaint, its Facebook page name was “amey HOOKAH” and it displayed the username “@amyhookahs” and hashtags including #amydeluxe, #amyhookah and #amyshisha.com.
...The Complainant provides only a few pictures from Facebook to prove its reputation. The Respondent has never placed an advertisement in the Google search engine.
6. ...
2019-09-03 - Case Details