Cupcake Patrol and John Zuccarini,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0928; Microgaming Software Systems Limited v. Sting Marketing Inc., Sting Marketing,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0869; Microgaming Software Systems Limited v. ...
2011-04-11 - Case Details
Laksh Internet Solutions Private Limited/Private Whois Escrow Domains Private Limited
WIPO Case No. D2008-0817 (); and Microgaming Software Systems Limited v. Private Whois Escrow Domains Private Limited/Laksh Internet Solutions Private Limited
WIPO Case No. ...It would appear that this is not a one-off instance and that the Registrar has a history of tardy responses to verification requests from the Center. See, for example, the recent decision in Microgaming Software Systems Limited v. Private Whois Escrow Domains Private Limited/Laksh Internet Solutions Private Limited,
WIPO Case No. ...
2008-10-02 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel finds this sufficient to establish registration and use in bad faith, as under the precepts set forth by Policy, paragraphs 4(a)(iii), 4(b); Rules, paragraph 3(b)(ix)(3), WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4 and cases including Microgaming Software Systems Limited v. E Net Marketing Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0013, Educational Testing Services v. ...
2019-07-30 - Case Details
D2008-1295 (finding that the word “free” was descriptive and did not eliminate the similarity to the complainant’s mark) and Microgaming Software Systems Limited v. DomainsByProxy.com and BB1Webs,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0870 (finding that the inclusion of the generic word “slots” did not add distinctive matter so as to distinguish the disputed domain name from the complainant’s mark).
...
2011-05-25 - Case Details
The distinction between the provision of mobile applications by the Complainant and the intention to sell mobile devices by the Respondent’s client is inconsequential (; Microgaming Software Systems Limited v. Stefan Molleman,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0157; “The fact that the Complainant’s MICROGAMING Marks do not explicitly cover mobile devices is irrelevant in this regard”).
...
2012-06-20 - Case Details
However, it does not render the disputed domain name sufficiently distinctive to avoid the inference that it is “confusingly similar” to Complainant's trademark (See Microgaming Software Systems Limited v. Fox Poker Tour,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0854 ).
...
2010-06-15 - Case Details
D2008-1016 where the disputed domain name was .
6. Microgaming Software Systems Limited v. Telecom Tech Corp.,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0894 where the disputed domain name was .
5.A.7 The Complainant relies upon this as evidence of bad faith registration and use under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
5.B. ...
2009-10-21 - Case Details
>
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Microgaming Systems Anstalt v. Sergey Milutin
Case No. D2002-0213
1. The Parties
Complainant is Microgaming Systems Anstalt, c/o Paul Novellie Legal Practitioners, 69 Athol Street, Douglas, Isle of Man IM11JQ, United Kingdom. ...
2002-08-29 - Case Details
D2003-0696 (“incorporating a trademark in its entirety can be sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark”). See also Microgaming Software Systems Limited v. DomainsByProxy.com and BB1Webs,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0870 (finding that the inclusion of the generic word “slots” did not add distinctive matter so as to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant's mark).
...
2010-06-29 - Case Details
Milan Swiss Branch Mendrisio v. Lizhen Ye,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0808; Microgaming Software Systems Limited v. E Net Marketing Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0013.
Without knowing the purpose of the file that the associated website seeks to download to the user’s computer, the Panel cannot comment with certainty on its relevance to the issue of bad faith, although it agrees with the Complainant that an unsolicited download is potentially a significant security risk. ...
2018-04-13 - Case Details
Xiao Long Lin, A La Si Jia,
WIPO Case No. D2020-2968; and Microgaming Software Systems Limited v. WhoisGuard,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0613).
It is also well established that the gTLD suffix “.com” is typically irrelevant when determining whether a domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark.
...
2021-06-30 - Case Details
This does not establish that the allegations were brought in bad faith, see
Microgaming Systems Anstalt v. Sergey Milutin, WIPO
Case No. D2002-0213 (August 23, 2002), nor have the Respondents otherwise
succeeded in making that showing. ...
2005-02-08 - Case Details
The screen capture produced by the Complainant of the website to which the disputed domain name has resolved, made on November 9, 2017, runs to 5 pages and is in Chinese with few English words, one of which is "microgaming". Gaming chips and cash are displayed. In the exercise of its powers to undertake limited factual research into matters of public record (WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0"), section 4.8), the Panel visited the website of the disputed domain name on December 22, 2017 and found internal links to a wide selection of games such as virtual slot machines and card games. ...
2018-01-08 - Case Details
Oded Keinan, Traffic Label Limited,
WIPO Case No. D2008-1388;
- Microgaming Software Systems Limited v. Oded Keinan, Traffic Label Limited,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0261;
- Société Anonyme des Bains de Mer et du Cercle des Etrangers à Monaco v. ...
2014-06-04 - Case Details
Telecom Tech Corp,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0961, Microgaming Software Systems Limited v. Telecom Tech Corp.,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0894, AXA SA v. Telecom Tech Corp.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2010-05-27 - Case Details
Various previous panels have upheld this view, including in Microgaming Software Systems Limited v. Hosting Hosting,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1423.
6. Discussion and Findings
Since the Respondent has failed to respond to the Complaint within the prescribed timeline, in accordance with paragraphs 5(f) and 14 of the Rules, the Panel finds that the present dispute is to be decided on the reasonable contentions featured in the Complaint.
...
2016-04-26 - Case Details
D2008-1295 (finding that the word “free” was descriptive and did not eliminate the similarity to the complainant’s mark) and Microgaming Software Systems Limited v. DomainsByProxy.com and BB1Webs,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0870 (finding that the inclusion of the generic word “slots” did not add distinctive matter so as to distinguish the disputed domain name from the complainant’s mark). ...
2013-01-16 - Case Details
In this case, the addition of “bonus” does not obscure the dominance of the Complainant's trademark in the disputed domain name (see Neteller Plc. v. Prostoprom,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0874 and Microgaming Software Systems Limited v. DomainsByProxy.com and BB1Webs,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0870).
In view of the above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark in which it has demonstrable rights. ...
2009-11-10 - Case Details
It is well established that a domain name that wholly incorporates a trademark may be confusingly similar to such trademark for purposes of the Policy despite the addition of common or generic words, such as “casino”, “casinos” and “poker tour” (See i.e..Microgaming Software Systems Limited v. Navedyne Entertainment Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1596; Raha-automaattiyhdistys v. ...
2011-01-04 - Case Details
Such efforts have been deemed evidence of bad faith. Microgaming Software Systems Limited. v. WhoisGuard,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0613; ("[T]he use of the Whoisguard service has often been a factor in finding bad-faith use of a domain name."); TREDNET, Direct Distribution International Ltd. ...
2014-12-18 - Case Details