Domain Admin, Privacy Protection Service, Inc. d/b/a PrivacyProtect.org / Domain Admin, P. Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft
Case No. D2016-0842
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Principal Financial Services, Inc. of Des Moines, Iowa, United States of America ("US"), represented by Neal & McDevitt, US.
The Respondent is Domain Admin, Privacy Protection Service, Inc. d/b/a PrivacyProtect.org of Nobby Beach, Queensland, Australia / Domain Admin, P. Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft of Kingstown, Saint Vincent And The Grenadines.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the "Registrar").
3. ...
2016-06-22 - Case Details
Box 286
United States of America
Represented by:
Thomas P. Liniak, Esq.
Liniak, Berenato, Longacre & White, LLC
6550 Rock Spring Drive
Bethesda, Maryland 20817
United States of America
2. ...Respondent’s Contentions
· Respondent registered a similar, but not identical or confusingly similar, domain name for the purpose of providing public commentary (Response p.1).
· Respondent has full intention of making non-infringing, legitimate non-commercial use of the domain name...
2000-07-05 - Case Details
The Complainant currently owns the following trademarks in Argentina:
- Trademark No. 1,467,108, P PROMEDON S.R.L., registered on June 16, 1989 under class 42 of the International Nomenclator of Trademarks;
- Trademark No. 1,358,898, P PROMEDON S.R.L., registered on June 16, 1989 under class 10 of the International Nomenclator of Trademarks;
- Trademark No. 1,770,858, P PROMEDON S.R.L., registered on August 6, 1999 under class 10 of the International Nomenclator of Trademarks.
...a fully-owned Brazilian subsidiary of the Complainant) owns the Brazilian trademark No. 818945168 P PROMEDON, registered on November 22, 1995 under classes 9 and 15 of the International Nomenclator of Trademarks.
...
2007-04-23 - Case Details
The website associated with the disputed domain name is currently inactive,
although the Complainant produces screenshots of the home page of the former site, which features a “P R I
V I L E G E” logo markedly similar to that of the Complainant. The site states that it is a “Design Company I
Category” and refers to the Shymkent and Dostyk Plazas. The Panel notes that there are shopping malls by
each of those names in Kazakhstan, although the said reference is not otherwise explained. At the bottom
of the page, beneath another “P R I V I L E G E” logo similar to that of the Complainant, is the legend “© All
rights reserved, PRIVILEGE GROUP DMCC Dubai.” ...
2022-07-28 - Case Details
In conducting this assessment, the Panel can and does think it is legitimate to take into account the fact that the letter "p" and letter “o” are next to one another on a qwerty keyboard.
6.34 That is sufficient to decide this issue in the favour of the Complainant. ...Instead, it requires registrars (absent the establishment of a Proxy Accreditation Program) to disclose “the circumstances under which the P/P Provider will reveal and/or publish in the Registration Data Service (Whois) or equivalent service the P/P Customer’s identity and/or contact data” (see paragraph 2.4.5 of the Specification On Privacy And Proxy Registrations attached to the 2003 Registrar Accreditation Agreement)....
2013-10-17 - Case Details
Petitioner
The Petitioner is Ferring B.V., theNetherlands, represented by Synch Advokat AB, Sweden.
2. Domain Holder
The Domain Holder is P. P., of Slovakia.
3. Domain Name and Procedural History
This Alternative Dispute Resolution proceeding relates to the Domain Name .
...
2020-01-27 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
V. de C. v. P. B.
Case No. D2007-1863
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Mrs. V. de C., of Paris, France, represented by Cabinet Marc Sabatier, France.
The Respondent is P. B., of Paris, France.
2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names and are registered with Network Solutions, LLC.
3. ...
2008-02-25 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Pro Confort SRL v. P-IER56, Ion Robu
Case No. D2008-0801
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Pro Confort SRL, of Romania, represented by Marius Cucuruz.
The Respondent is P-IER56, Ion Robu, of Romania.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Key-Systems GmbH dba domaindiscount24.com.
3. ...
2008-08-22 - Case Details
März 2001, Klasse 36 für Finanzwesen, Geldgeschäfte, Immobilienwesen, Klasse 38 für Telekommunikation)
(ii) Kombinierte Marke NEUE AARGAUER BANK (Marke Nr. P-446031, Hinterlegungsdatum 13. Mai 1997, Klasse 36 für Finanzwesen, Geldgeschäfte)
(iii) Wortmarke NAB AARGAUER INDEX - AGX (Marke Nr. P-439230, Hinterlegungsdatum 7. November 1996, Klasse 36 für Finanzwesen, Geldgeschäfte)
(iv) Kombinierte Marke NAB-2 FUTURA VORSORGE (Markeneintragungsgesuch Nr. 00405/2009, Hinterlegungsdatum 6. ...
2009-09-14 - Case Details
CENTRO
DE ARBITRAJE
Y MEDIACIÓN
DECISIÓN DEL EXPERTO
Javier Iribarne Franco c. N. P.
Caso No. DES2025-0008
1. Las Partes
El Demandante es Javier Iribarne Franco, España.
El Demandado es N. P., España.
2. El Nombre de Dominio y el Registrador
La Demanda tiene como objeto el nombre de dominio en disputa .
...
2025-04-17 - Case Details
The Claimants have a right in a distinctive sign
In the present case, Claimant 1 demonstrates to enjoy exclusive rights in the word “Pamp” both as a corporate name validly registered on March 14, 1977 (art. 956 of the Swiss Code of Obligations) and as a verbal trademark n° P-351371 registered under class 14 with a priority date as of October 31, 1986 (art. 3 of the Federal Trademark Act).
...The website relates to precious metals, products for which protection has been sought for under the trademark No. P-351371 held by Claimant 1, and entirely reproduces numerous sections and content taken out of the official website at “www.pamp.ch” held by Claimant 2 and exploited by Claimant 1. ...
2012-12-27 - Case Details
The only difference between the protected mark and the disputed domain name is the inserted letter “p” and the addition of the top level domain, “.com”.
The first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is demonstrated.
...The disputed domain name merely inserts the single letter “p” to the “wordpress” phrase, between the first and second letters. The Panel doubts that it is merely happenstance that on the standard English keyboard, the keystroke for the inserted letter “p” is immediately adjacent to that of the second letter in the Complainant’s mark “o”. ...
2013-03-11 - Case Details
Six of the Domain Names contain the dominant word COKE as well as other words (“promo,” “cola”, “mobile”), abbreviations (“sa”, “mtn”), or letters “c”, “p”). The words “promo” ,“cola,” and “mobile” do little or nothing to reduce the likelihood of confusion between the Domain Names and the world famous mark COKE. Likewise, the abbreviations “sa” and “mtn” do not diminish the confusing similarity between the Domain Names and the COKE mark. Nor do the stray letters “c” or “p” – whether situated before or after the word COKE – diminish to any meaningful extent the confusing similarity between the mark and the Domain Names.
...
2013-10-14 - Case Details
ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
J. P. Boden & Co Ltd v. Dumi whatmy
Case No. D2022-5046
1. The Parties
The Complainant is J. P. Boden & Co Ltd, United Kingdom, represented internally.
The Respondent is Dumi whatmy, China.
2. ...
2023-02-20 - Case Details
Indeed, the only difference between the Complainants “THOMSON”
trademark and its reproduction in the domain name
is the addition of the letter “p”. As a rule, almost any simple
addition to a well-known trademark is powerless to prevent a connotation with
the rightful owner of the trademark (see for example V&S Vin&Sprit
AhB v. ...Further, the fact that the word “Thomson” is used sometimes
as a personal name that can also be spelled with a “p” in the middle
adds to the confusing similarity. Furthermore, the mistake seems to be common,
even on websites addressing the true products of Thomson and Grass Valley. ...
2004-11-10 - Case Details
The only difference between the Trademark and the domain name in dispute is that the latter has only one additional p before “port”. This modification does not diminish in any way the confusing or almost identical character of the domain name in dispute with the Trademark. ...The Panel finds
that such Respondent’s activities do not in the circumstances constitute
legitimate non commercial fair use or bona fide offering of goods and
services. See e.g. Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847.
The Panel find that the second criterion of the Policy has been met.
...
2007-05-03 - Case Details
Complainant’s evidence, and in particular Complainant’s Exhibit P indicates that prior to February 2007 Respondent was using the domain name in connection with its provision of software in the field of chat support services and e-mail management services. ...In addition to the elements referred to above, the Panel further notes that the frames of Respondent’s website shown in Exhibit P of the Complaint do not resemble the corresponding frames of Complainant’s website in Exhibit H or suggest in any way any association with, or attempt to emulate, Complainant’s website or business.
7. ...
2007-08-08 - Case Details
According to the .au registry, auDA, the disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on November 21, 2012: see Complaint, p 7, and Annex 10 to the Complaint.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that all the requirements of the .au Dispute Resolution Policy are made out, namely:
1. ...In addition, there is some prima facie evidence that the Respondent has been regularly engaging in a process of abusive registrations in relation to well known marks: see p 8 and Annex 11 to the Complaint (evidence of a series of registrations linked to the same contact email address as in the present proceeding).
...
2013-07-02 - Case Details
Centro de Arbitraje y Mediación de la OMPI
DECISIÓN DEL EXPERTO
Centre National d’Art et de Culture Georges Pompidou c. Desmet Studio’s y P. Weijenberg
Caso No. DES2015-0016
1. Las Partes
El Demandante es Centre National d’Art et de Culture Georges Pompidou con domicilio en Paris, Francia, representado por Alexander Zuazo & Asociados, España.
...Desmet Studio’s registró los nombres de dominio en disputa , , y con fecha de 1 de enero de 2014 y P Weijenberg registró el nombre de dominio en disputa el 6 de marzo de 2015.
6. ...
2015-07-06 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name includes a typographical variation of its
GRAB trademark (the letter “b” being replaced with “p”), in addition to descriptive terms, respectively
“longthanh”, which is a geographical location in Viet Nam and “sieure”, which is a Vietnamese term “siêu rẻ”
meaning “super cheap” in English. ...The Panel f inds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, which consists of the obvious
misspelling of the GRAB trademark of the Complainant, with the replacement of a letter “b” with “p”. This
misspelling in the disputed domain name also referred to as typosquatting, does not prevent a f inding of
confusing similarity (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9). ...
2024-02-19 - Case Details