Centro Consulenze Kim Paloschi, WIPO
Case No. D2000-1171 at p. 5), the Administrative Panel held that even if
it "admitted that the aim of the website was to serve as a discussion
forum, it is of the opinion that the exercise of the right of free speech does
not require the use of Domain Name identical to the trademark of the Complainant.
...Com-Union Corp., WIPO Case No. D2000-0020,
at p. 4); in addition, this Panel, pointing out that when registering the domain
name the Respondent knowingly chose a name identical to the trademark of the
Complainant, stated that "Respondent could have chosen a domain name
adequately reflecting both the object and independent nature of its site, as
evidence today in thousands of domain names" (same case).
...
2002-11-04 - Case Details
The Complainant also has U.S. trademark applications pending for the marks Chadbourneparke and C&P with application serial numbers 78,190,362 and 76,421,272 respectively both for legal services in International Class 42 in the PTO. The application for the CHADBOURNEPARKE mark was filed on December 2, 2002, but has not yet been registered by the PTO. The application for the C&P mark was filed on June 14, 2002, and it has not yet been registered.
The mark C&P is not at issue in the present case as the Complainant has not asserted that either it or the Respondent has registered a related domain name.
...
2003-09-17 - Case Details
Finally, the websites to which the Domain Names direct contain several words in English, such as “shop” and “part of the P&G family”.
Previous UDRP panels have found that certain scenarios may warrant proceeding in a language other than that of the registration agreement. ...The websites displayed the Complainants’ trademarks and the statement “Part of The P&G family”. The Domain Names , and currently direct Internet users to the Respondent’s website “www.зубные-щетки.укр”. ...
2017-10-25 - Case Details
It is well-established among Panelists that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the presence of “[…] a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights”, without expressly restricting the scope of application of the Policy to registered trademarks or service marks.2
Unregistered trademarks are protected under Greek law (Articles 13-15 of Law 146/1914, Foundedakis, T., The conflict of distinctive identifiers, Sakkoulas, Athens-Thessaloniki 2003, p. 6-12, Minoudis, G., World Trademark Report Yearbook 2007, p. 134). Necessary requirements for such protection are distinctiveness of the sign at issue or in the absence of distinctiveness, distinctiveness acquired through use of the sign or establishment of the unregistered trademark in transactions as a trademark in a way that a significant part of the relevant sector of the public is aware that the mark serves to distinguish goods or services (Foundedakis, T., ibid, p. 53-54, Minoudis, G., ibid, p. 134).
...This very finding also contradicts the Respondent’s allegation that he has never looked for a sponsor (Response, p. 8).
The most meaningful part of the Complainants’ marks is incorporated in the domain name, the First Complainant’s unregistered mark and portions of the Second Complainants’ registered mark are reproduced in Respondent’s website and the Respondent appears to have no corporate, partnership or fictitious business name or business listing registration under the disputed domain name.
...
2008-03-07 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
G&P Net S.p.A. v. Kenn Lee
Case No. D2011-0598
1. The Parties
The Complainant is G&P Net S.p.A. of Altopascio, Italy, represented by Società Italiana Brevetti, Italy.
...On March 8, 2011, the Center issued a decision regarding the same Complainant with respect to a different disputed domain name . See G&P Net S.p.A. v. Kenn Lee,
WIPO Case No. D2011-0122. The Respondent in that case was also a Mr. Kenn Lee of the People’s Republic of China. ...
2011-05-27 - Case Details
The Complainant is also the registered proprietor of a stylized “P” mark, which is also registered in the
United States for a variety of financial services (Reg. No. 5,083,539, registered on November 15, 2016).
...In the present case, the Respondent was using the Complainant’s stylised P trademark on the website under
the disputed domain name and had a message stating “歡迎來到principal” (“Welcome to Principal” in
English). ...
2024-03-01 - Case Details
However, the Claimant has not provided any evidence showing that the disputed
domain names are intended to be used for goods that are identical or similar to those claimed by the
trademark at issue (see Mondini/Zollinger Löw, in SIWR III/2, Basel 2019, p. 181).
Therefore, there has been no infringement of the Claimant’s trademark within the meaning of art. 3 and art.
13 TPA.
...Moreover, the Respondent could also use the disputed domain names
for noncommercial purposes, in other words for purposes that would be beyond the scope of trademark law
(see Weber, E-Commerce und Recht, 2nd ed., Zurich 2010, p. 140).
It follows that there has been no trademark infringement within the meaning of Art. 3, 13, and/or 15 TPA in
this case.
...
2025-02-25 - Case Details
ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Equinor ASA v. ADAUCTO RODRIGUES P FILHO
Case No. D2024-4944
1. The Parties
Complainant is Equinor ASA, Norway, represented by Rouse AB (Valea AB trading as Rouse AB), Sweden.
Respondent is Adaucto Rodrigues P Filho, Brazil.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (hereinafter “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with
Hostinger Operations, UAB (the “Registrar”).
3. ...
2025-01-21 - Case Details
Later, the Respondent also listed the domain name for sale at the auction site GreatDomains.com (Complaint p. 13). The Complainant also has shown that the Respondent has registered numerous other domain names that include famous trademarks such as: Dallas Cowboys, NFL football, ESPN and Fox as used in broadcasting (Complaint Exhibit E).
...The Respondent kept hinting that some type of accommodation could be reached and then later simply put the name up for auction at GreatDomains.com (Complaint p. 13). The Panel finds the Respondent violated the Policy at 4(b)(i) by attempting to sell the name back for far more than it paid for it.
...
2001-04-06 - Case Details
The Response was filed with the Center on October 19, 2008.
The Center appointed Thomas P. Pinansky as the sole panelist in this matter on November 12, 2008. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. ...Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name, , be transferred to the Complainant.
Thomas P. Pinansky
Sole Panelist
Dated: November 26, 2008...
2008-11-28 - Case Details
Respondent has fully integrated the Complainants’ WPT trademark into its Domain Name string, save for the addition of the letter “p” between the letters “wp” and “t”. An Internet user could easily type a double “p” and be diverted to a different website. ...Additionally, the Panel finds the addition of the letter “p” to be an obvious misspelling of Complainants’ WPT trademark, which would normally lead to a finding of confusing similarity.
...
2012-09-18 - Case Details
At the time of its registration, the disputed domain name was pointing to an active webpage offering online gambling under (Annex P to the Complaint) and became inactive after the Complainants had sent out their cease and desist letter to the Respondent (Annexes J and Q to the Complaint). ...It does
not matter, as pointed out by the Complainants, that these acronyms be inversed
(see Eroski S. Coop v. Sergei P regarding, WIPO
Case No. D2006-0102; Schneider Electric SA v. Ningbo Wecans Network Technology
Co., Ltd., Ningbo Eurosin International Trade Co., Ltd., WIPO
Case No. ...
2006-08-21 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 26, 2011.
The Center appointed Thomas P. Pinansky as the sole panelist in this matter on May 6, 2011. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. ...Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Thomas P. Pinansky
Sole Panelist
Dated: May 20, 2011...
2011-06-03 - Case Details
Accordingly,
the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 6, 2022.
page 2
The Center appointed William P. Knight as the sole panelist in this matter on April 12, 2022. The Panel finds
that it was properly constituted. ...Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel
orders that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
/William P. Knight/
William P. Knight
Sole Panelist
Date: April 22, 2022
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Sodexo v. ...
2022-04-26 - Case Details
The addition of the letters “gb”, “s”, “ro”, and
“p” to the WHATSAPP trademark does not prevent the confusing similarity between the disputed domain
names and the Complainant’s trademark. ...The addition of the letters “gb”, “s”, “ro”, and “p” to the WHATSAPP trademark does not p...
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names for the following reasons: (1) the Respondent is not authorized by the Complainant to make any use of its WHATSAPP trademark, in a domain ...
...
2024-06-12 - Case Details
On December 11, 2018 and December 28, 2018, the Center received email communications from, respectively, Alex Ibarcena and P. A. Ibarcena.
On December 14, 2018 and January 9, 2019, the Center received further email communications from the Complainant. ...The Complainant states that it has not authorised the Respondent, “Technal Aluminium”, Jack Shiber or P. A. Ibarcena or Alex Ibarcena to use the Complainant’s trade mark or to include that trade mark in the disputed domain name. ...
2019-01-30 - Case Details
The Disputed Domain Name comprises: (a) an inversion of the letters “p” and “i” in the Complainants’ DUPIXENT marks; (b) followed by a Top-Level Domain suffix “.com”. The inversion of the letters “p” and “i” of the Complainants’ DUPIXENT trademarks to read DUIPXENT in the Disputed Domain Name is insufficient to alleviate the likelihood of confusion between the Complainants’ aforementioned trademarks and the Disputed Domain Name registered by the Respondent. ...The Disputed Domain Name inverses the letters “p” and “i” of the Complainants’ trademarks with the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) extension “.com”. ...
2021-01-08 - Case Details
That does not, however, translate into a right
to identify one's self as the New York Times or Time Magazine" (WIPO
Case No. D2000-0299, at p. 9).
Likewise, in the Migros case mentioned above, the Administrative Panel
held that even if it is "admitted that the aim of the website was to serve
as a discussion forum, it is of the opinion that the exercise of the right of
free speech does not require the use of Domain Name identical to the trademark
of the Complainant. ...Chris Hoffman, WIPO Case No. D2000-1608,
at p. 4).
Admittedly, the Respondents chose such a domain name identical of the Complainant’s trade mark CATIA for providing information on the Complainant's landmark product CATIA, thus, misleading consumers on the source of said information.
...
2002-04-08 - Case Details
In view of the foregoing, neither trademark law nor the protection sought by Claimant under the legislation for protection of trade names or for unfair competition are applicable (see for trademark law: SIWR-Marbach, p. 197, David, Markenschutzgesetz, N° 27 ad article 13; for trade names: art. 956 CO, ATF 107 II 362, 92 II 278 and sic! 10/2002, p. 686; for unfair competition: ATF 120 II 78, 123 IV 211, 125/376, and David, Schweiz. Wettbewerbsrecht, p. 9).
...
2005-10-03 - Case Details
The Domain Name(s) and Registrar(s)
The disputed domain names are , , , , , , , , , <p-u-l-l-m-a-n.com>, , , , are all registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc.
3. ...Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the following domain names , , , , , , , , , <p-u-l-l-m-a-n.com>, , , , be transferred to the Complainant.
...
2008-05-30 - Case Details