As the Complainants point out in the Complaint ( p. 13), the Panel finds the public would believe the disputed domain names were an integral part of the Complainants’ on-line newspaper offerings, for almost every daily newspaper has a sports and a weather section. ...The Panel finds it interesting to note that the Respondents are quite open about their business of "traffic generating" (the Response at p. 2). (see Scholastic Inc. v. Applied Software Solutions, Inc. ICANN/WIPO Case No. D2000-1629, March 15, 2001; Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. ...
2001-04-23 - Case Details
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks since it includes four
components:
- (i) “grap”
The substitution of the letter “b” for the letter “p” cannot prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the
GRAB trademark and this “grap” element. In fact, these letters have a similar visual appearance as the letter
“p” is considered an upside-down letter “b.“
- (ii) “xemay”
That it is a Vietnamese word meaning “motorbike...
2024-02-23 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
The Procter & Gamble Company, P&G Hair Care, LLC v. Domain Admin
Case No. D2007-1040
1. The Parties
Complainant is The Procter & Gamble Company, P&G Hair Care, LLC, Cincinnati, Ohio, United States of America; represented internally.
...On the contrary, they allege that the domain name is being used to offer information on other products on hair related issues, offering links to several websites on this matter, to which P&G affirms to have no affiliation, sponsorship or endorsement whatsoever. Annex H of the complaint brings a copy of the “links page” at the Respondent’s website, evidencing this allegation.
...
2007-10-29 - Case Details
The Domain Name registered in 2017 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark only substituting a letter “r” for the letter “p” and the generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” which do not prevent the said confusing similarity.
...As such the substitution of a letter “p” with a letter “r” and the addition of the gTLD “.com” does not prevent the Domain Name being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark under the Policy.
...
2021-12-02 - Case Details
ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER
DECISÃO DO PAINEL ADMINISTRATIVO
Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. C. P. S., W. A.
Caso No. DBR2025-0012
1. As Partes
A Reclamante é Amazon Technologies, Inc., Estados Unidos da América (“EUA”), representada por
Soerensen Garcia Advogados Associados, Brasil.
Os Reclamados são C. P. S. (“Primeira Reclamada”) e W.A. (“Segundo Reclamado”), Brasil.
2. Os Nomes de Domínio e a Unidade de Registro
Os nomes de domínio em disputa são e , os quais estão
registrados perante o NIC.br.
3. ...
2025-07-07 - Case Details
Em 5 de dezembro de 2023, a Reclamante ajuizou ação de nulidade do registro de marca No. 925267880,
depositado em 20 de dezembro de 2021 e concedido em 7 de fevereiro de 2023, para a marca mista
LOVENSE de titularidade do Sr. M. E. A. P. (proc. No. 5126382-75.2023.4.02.5101 perante a 12ª Vara
Federal do Rio de Janeiro – Anexo 16 à Reclamação).
...Reclamada
Em mensagens extemporâneas, a Reclamada sustenta que teria passado os nomes de domínio em disputa
ao seu filho, o Sr. M. E. A. P., que seria o titular do registro de marca nº 925267880, de 7 de fevereiro de
2023, para a marca mista LOVENSE na classe 35, estando ele, portanto, legitimado ao uso dos mesmos.
6. ...
2024-04-03 - Case Details
On August 8, 1997, Complainant filed a complaint with NSI with respect to Respondent’s registration of the Domain Name. Complaint, p.6. The Domain Name was placed on hold and apparently has not been used for an active web site. Id.
5. ...b) No legitimate interest in domain name
Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant and is not otherwise authorized to use the Complainant’s mark. Complaint, p.8. By failing to submit a Response to the Complaint, Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance which could demonstrate, pursuant to Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. ...
2000-06-21 - Case Details
De esta correspondencia debemos destacar lo manifestado por
S. P. en su e-mail de 21 de junio de 2001:
"Me reitero en que la única posibilidad de que podemos ceder este dominio es que Udes. nos oferten una cantidad en concepto de amortización".
A pesar del requerimiento remitido, S. P. continuó haciendo uso del nombre de dominio para una página web de contenido pornográfico. Únicamente se limitó a retirar la marca gráfica perteneciente a las demandantes. ...
2002-06-11 - Case Details
P&G spends considerable sums on advertising and was named in 2008 the Advertiser of the Year.
In 1929 Dr. ...Haas later sold the patent to the founder of the Tampax Company, which was later renamed Tambrands, Inc. and subsequently purchased by P&G in 1997.
The Complainants are owners of multiple registrations over the trademark TAMPAX in various classes (mostly in class 5). ...
2009-05-11 - Case Details
May 6, 2008 Response to Office Action)
“Applicant has previously demonstrated that “affinity card” is a term of art in the marketing industry for a type of consumer loyalty card, and the Applicant does not use the term “affinity card” as a trademark […]
[…] Marketing professionals will immediately understand that Applicant’s use of AFFINITY CARD is descriptive; they will not think that the term AFFINITY CARD is Applicant’s trademark […]”
(February 22, 2011 Request for Reconsideration after Final Refusal)
- “The term AFFINITY CARD does not function as an indicator of source.” (p.5)
- “Affinity Card” is not an obscure term of art – such cards are widely marketed” (p.5)
- No one can “stop Applicant [the Complainant here] or anyone else from using the descriptive term “affinity card”, which is clearly in the public domain.” (p.7)
- “affinity card” is not a trademark” and “is incapable of serving as an indicator of source” (p.8)”
(July 11, 2011 Appeal Brief)
The Panel is prepared to accept the Respondent’s evidence that he registered the disputed domain name in June 1998 because the phrase “affinity card” was generic and he was personally involved in the affinity card business. ...
2012-03-01 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
DECISÃO DO PAINEL ADMINISTRATIVO
Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. - Petrobras v. P. R. P. d. S.
Caso No. DBR2014-0004
1. As Partes
A Reclamante é Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. - Petrobras, do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil, representada por Ouro Preto Advogados, Brasil.
O Reclamado é P. R. P. d. S., de Goiânia, Goiás, Brasil.
2. O Nome de Domínio e a Unidade de Registro
O nome de domínio em disputa é , o qual está registrado perante o NIC.br.
3. ...
2014-07-28 - Case Details
The Panel accepts the Complainant’s
request and finds that consolidation is proper.
Paragraph 10(e) of the Rules states that a “[p]anel shall decide a request by a Party to consolidate multiple
domain name disputes in accordance with the Policy and these Rules”. ...Paragraph 10(c) of the Rules provides, in relevant part, that “the [p]a...
The record indicates the disputed domain names are under common control. The following facts support this conclusion:
A. ...
2025-01-21 - Case Details
Es igualmente titular de diversos registros de marca españoles sobre el logo S&P.
El nombre de dominio en disputa de registrado con fecha 5 de febrero de 2024 y aloja una página web en la
que aparecen las marcas SOLER PALAU y S&P y se contienen indicaciones como “Tienda Online de venta
de productos Soler&Palau”, “Tarifa Soler&Palau 2024” o “Principios de la compañía Soler&Palau”.
5. ...- En la página web de la Demandada se utilizan las marcas SOLER PALAU y S&P de la Demandante,
además de la leyenda “Tienda Online de venta de productos Soler&Palau”, generando engaño y confusión
entre los consumidores.
...
2024-09-12 - Case Details
ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER
DECISÃO DO PAINEL ADMINISTRATIVO
Lotus Bakeries nv v. W. L. P. D. A.
Caso No. DBR2024-0023
1. As Partes
A Reclamante é Lotus Bakeries nv, Bélgica, representada por Gevers Legal nv, Bélgica.
...DECISÃO DO PAINEL ADMINISTRATIVO
Lotus Bakeries nv v. W. L. P. D. A.
Caso No. DBR2024-0023
1. As Partes...
2024-10-01 - Case Details
Nuclear Marshmallows, Case No. D2000-0003, ¶7.2, p. 4 (Administrative Panel Decision, February 18, 2000); Parfume Christian Dior v. 1 Netpower, Inc., Case No. D2000-0022, ¶ 6D, p.5 (Administration Panel Division, March 3, 2000).
(9) In addition to any actual knowledge Respondent may have of Complainant's rights in the BRITANNICA Marks, Respondent has had constructive notice of Complainant's trademark rights in the ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA and BRITANNICA marks since 1950 and 1984 respectively...
2000-09-19 - Case Details
The Respondent is P & G, the legal status which is not clear. The address of the Respondent as contained in the domain name registration is c/o Pantzar, Karlavägen 54, 114 49 Stockholm, Sweden.
2. ...P&G has engaged in a pattern of conduct that indicates that it registered the domain name to prevent the owner of the mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name (see id. ...
2000-08-11 - Case Details
The Respondent is European Travel Network with addresses at P O Box 025 216 SJO 1714, Miami, FL 33102-5216, United States of America; P O Box 561, Eindhoven, Noord-Brabant, 5600 AN, The Netherlands; and in Costa Rica.
2. ...On the same day the Center transmitted by fax and by mail copies of the foregoing documents to:
European Travel Network
P O Box 025 216 - SJO 1714
Miami, FL 33102-516
United States of America
European Travel Network
P O Box 561, Eindhoven
Noord-Brabant, 5600 AN
The Netherlands
World NIC Name Host
Network Solutions, Inc
505 Huntmar Park Drive
Herndon, VA 20170
United States of America
On August 29, 2000, the Center advised the Complainant that Paragraph VIII of the Complaint, Mutual Jurisdiction, did not comply with paragraph 3(b) (xiii) of the Rules, which provides that the Complaint must
"(xiii)State that Complainant will submit with respect to any challenges to a decision in the administrative proceeding cancelling or transferring the domain name, to the jurisdiction of the Courts in at least one specified Mutual Jurisdiction."
...
2000-11-02 - Case Details
The Respondent is European Travel Network with addresses at P O Box 025 216 SJO 1714, Miami, FL 33102-516, United States of America; P O Box 561, Eindhoven, Noord-Brabant, 5600 AN, The Netherlands; and in Costa Rica.
2. ...On the same day the Center transmitted by fax and by mail copies of the foregoing documents to:
European Travel Network
P O Box 025 216 - SJO 1714
Miami, FL 33102-516
United States of America
European Travel Network
P O Box 561, Eindhoven
Noord-Brabant, 5600 AN
The Netherlands
World NIC Name Host
Network Solutions, Inc
505 Huntmar Park Drive
Herndon, VA 20170
United States of America
On August 29, 2000, the Center advised the Complainant that Paragraph VIII of the Complaint, Mutual Jurisdiction, did not comply with paragraph 3(b) (xiii) of the Rules, which provides that the Complaint must
"(xiii)State that Complainant will submit with respect to any challenges to a decision in the administrative proceeding cancelling or transferring the domain name, to the jurisdiction of the Courts in at least one specified Mutual Jurisdiction."
...
2000-11-02 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
The Coca-Cola Company v. P. Engbers
Case No. DNL2012-0037
1. The Parties
Complainant is The Coca-Cola Company of Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America, represented by NautaDutilh N.V., The Netherlands.
Respondent is P. Engbers of Elst, The Netherlands.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with SIDN through Active 24.
3. ...
2012-07-25 - Case Details
ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
VFS Global Service Pvt Ltd. v. Namecheap Inc., Frances P Kump
Case No. D2022-0329
1. The Parties
The Complainant is VFS Global Service Pvt Ltd., India, represented by Aditya & Associates, India.
The Respondent is Namecheap Inc., United States of America / Frances P Kump, Canada.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc.
...
2022-03-25 - Case Details