Queensland Performance Pty Ltd aka Shadex Industries P/L
Case No. DAU2014-0038
1. The Parties
The Complainant is H-D U.S.A., LLC of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States of America, represented by Baldwins Intellectual Property, New Zealand.
...After Hours Home Physio a.k.a. Shadex Industries P/L a.k.a. Queensland Performance Pty Ltd,
WIPO Case No. D2014-2168. That email also included some brief submissions. ...
2015-02-23 - Case Details
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The print-outs from the Benelux Trademarks Register of the Trademarks, filed as annexes to the Complaint and the response to the Procedural Order, show that the Benelux figurative trademark SMARAGD MUSIC has been registered in the name of Ronald J. Visch and Manfred P. Jongenelis (the latter of whom, the Panel notes, does not have the same first name as the Complainant) and that the application for registration of the Benelux word mark SMARAGD MUSIC has been made in the name of the aforementioned Manfred P. ...Further, the Complainant did not clarify the relationship, if any, between him and Manfred P. Jongenelis and/or Ronald J. Visch, nor did it so in the response to the Procedural Order.
As a consequence, the Panel is of the opinion that the Complainant has not sufficiently demonstrated his rights in the Trademarks.
...
2013-01-08 - Case Details
page 4
According to prevailing doctrine and case law, the mere registration of a domain name without actual use is
not in itself considered to be a use infringing the trademark right within the meaning of Art. 13 TMA
(judgment of the Federal Supreme Court of November 8, 2004, 4C.31 /2004, cons. 4.2, ;
judgment of the District Court Bern-Laupen of March 15, 1999, cons. 7.1, in sic, 1/2000 p. 24-25,
; Alberini/Guillet, L’incidence du contenu du site Internet dans les litiges en matière de noms
de domaine, sic, 2012 305, p. 313; Rolf H. Weber, E-Commerce und Recht, Rechtliche
Rahmenbedingungen elektronischer Geschäftsformen, 2nd ed, Zurich 2010, p. 137; Thouvenin/Dorigo, in:
Noth/Bühler/Thouvenin [eds.], SHK Markenschutzgesetz, Bern 2009, Art. 13 N 50).
...
2025-03-25 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Evolution Gaming Group AB v. Domain Admin, WhoisGuard, Inc. / P Jaden
Case No. D2020-1576
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Evolution Gaming Group AB, Sweden, represented by Zacco Sweden AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Domain Admin, WhoisGuard, Inc., Panama / P Jaden, Singapore.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc. ...
2020-08-27 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
P-Net (Proprietary) Limited v. Nikolay Indahl, Bashundhara
Case No. D2021-1323
1. The Parties
The Complainant is P-Net (Proprietary) Limited, South Africa, represented by Spoor & Fisher Attorneys, South Africa.
...It is now the leading online recruitment provider in South Africa.
The corporate name “P-Net Proprietary Limited” was registered with the South African Companies and Intellectual Property Commission in 1999 and an extract from the companies register showing this is annexed as Annexure F.
...
2021-07-13 - Case Details
Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Section 3.1.4 of WIPO Overview 3.0 provides that “[p]anels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith”. ...Additionally, section 3.4 of WIPO Overview 3.0 provides that, “[p]anels have held that the use of a domain name for purposes other than to host a website may constitute bad faith…. ...
2020-04-21 - Case Details
The Complainant says that the change of the letter “p” by the letter “q” does not provide sufficient distinction from the Complainant’s mark, and is hardly noticeable and clearly deliberate, representing a classic typosquatting case with the intention to confuse email recipients.
...There is no doubt that the disputed domain name is indeed a misspelling of the Complainant’s well-known mark TETRA PAK with the change of the letter “p” by the letter “q”, in addition to the hyphen and the letters “ch”.
Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark for purposes of the Policy “when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2021-08-03 - Case Details
On August 15, 2000, Network Solutions transmitted via e-mail to the Center its Verification Response, confirming that the registrant is AD-X Network, Inc., the Respondent herein, and stating that the administrative, technical and zone contacts are Dickson, P (PD1276) paul@ADX-NET, ADX Financial Network, Inc., 4550 Birch Bay Lynden Road, Blaine, WA 98230
No Response has been filed by the Respondent. However, the Center notified the Respondent of the Complaint by courier, fax and e-mail, and received confirmation of delivery on September 5, 2000, from the courier, TNT, and satisfactory transmission on September 1, 2000, of the fax, and likewise received confirmation from TNT of delivery to P. Dickson on September 5, 2000. Notifications of Default were sent by courier (FedEx) on September 26, 2000, to both the Respondent and to P. ...
2000-10-18 - Case Details
Morgan v. Resource Marketing, Case No. D2000-0035, ¶6, p.4 (Administrative Panel Decision, March 23, 2000); Shields v. Zuccarini, 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 3350 (March 22, 2000); Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. John Zuccarini and the Cupcake Patrol, Case No. D2000-0330, ¶4, p.3 (Administration Panel Decision, June 7, 2000); Hewlett-Packard Company v. Cupcake City, Forum File No.: FA000200093562, p.4 (Administrative Panel Decision, April 7, 2000).
...
2000-10-20 - Case Details
Accordingly, the [p]anel finds that [c]omplainant has failed in these Policy proceedings to establish that [r]espondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name”.
...The panelist in that case said:
“In fact, there is no evidence that [r]espondent knew of [c]omplainant, of [c]omplainant’s trademark or of [c]omplainant’s exclusive rights on providing gambling services in the Princedom of Monaco. Therefore, the [p]anel finds that [r]espondent did not register the [d]omain [n]ame in bad faith.
Furthermore, the [p]anel finds that in this case, paragraph 4(b), (i) of the Policy is not applicable and that the [r]espondent did not use the [d]omain [n]ame in bad faith. ...
2010-10-25 - Case Details
Dans la première page sur le site web, le visiteur retrouve sur la droite l’accès à la page Facebook associée à la partie (Annexe 6 de la Réponse) reportage journalistique et le lecteur ou visiteur voit le titre présenté sous forme de logo (B) qui reprend substantiellement la présentation graphique présentement utilisée par le Requérant depuis au moins 2013 selon l’Annexe P de la Réplique laquelle montre la page complète et non seulement la partie centre gauche (A).
A. ...Selon la preuve présentée par le Requérant, le Défendeur cherche ou accepte de placer de la publicité sur le site associé au nom de domaine litigieux et ainsi s’adonne à cet usage à des fins commerciales (Annexes M et P). Cet usage de publicité a d’ailleurs été clairement reconnu par le Défendeur lors de ses communications avec les procureurs du Requérant et d’une entrevue radio québécoise. ...
2016-09-06 - Case Details
Factual Background
The Complainants, The Procter & Gamble Company (“P&G Complainant”), and Braun GmbH (“Braun
Complainant”) (which the P&G Complainant acquired in 2005), (collectively, the “Complainants”), sell
shaving and other consumer products worldwide under the well-known BRAUN trademark. ...The Braun Complainant owns an International registration for its BRAUN figurative trademark, No. 400415,
issued on May 23, 1973, in Class 8 for hair cutters and shavers, and component parts, and in other classes
for other goods; a European Union registration, No. 000394122, for its BRAUN trademark, issued on August
17, 1999, in Class 8 for electric shavers and hair clippers, certain component parts, and other goods, and in
other classes for other goods and services; a United States registration, No. 4148851 for its BRAUN stylized
trademark, issued on May 29, 2012, with a first use in January 1982, in Class 8 for electric razors and hair
clippers and certain replacement parts, and in class 21; and other registrations.
The P&G Complainant owns the domain name , registered on June 24, 1997, on which the
Complainants advertise and sell their shaving products and other products. ...
2024-12-10 - Case Details
O Reclamado é T. P. F., Brasil.
2. O Nome de Domínio e a Unidade de Registro
O nome de domínio em disputa é (“Nome de Domínio em Disputa”), o qual
está registrado perante o NIC.br.
3. ...DECISÃO DO PAINEL ADMINISTRATIVO
Aktiebolaget (AB) Electrolux v. T. P. F.
Caso No. DBR2024-0036
1. As Partes...
2024-12-09 - Case Details
Further, Respondent asserts that the
added letter “p” in the term “pappa” changes its meaning to “daddy” as compared to the Complainant’s use
of “papa” to signify “pope”. ...The disputed domain name is likely to be viewed as highly similar to Complainant’s
PAPA GYROS mark. The addition of an additional letter “p” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity
and the disputed domain name is likely to be perceived by consumers as having a similar appearance, and a
perhaps even identical pronunciation, connotation, and commercial impression. ...
2022-09-22 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Golden Goose S.p.A. v. Privacy Protect LLC / P de Ree, David Lomas
Case No. D2018-0592
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Golden Goose S.p.A. of Milan, Italy, represented by Scarpellini Naj-Oleari & Associati, Italy.
The Respondent is Privacy Protect LLC of Burlington, Massachusetts, United States of America ("United States") / P de Ree of Baltimore, Maryland, United States / David Lomas of Essex Junction, Vermont, United States.
2. ...
2018-06-05 - Case Details
The disputed
domain name dif fers f rom the SUPERDRY mark only by an additional letter “p”.
page 3
The Respondent has no rights in the disputed domain name, which redirects to a website featuring PPC links
related to men’s and women’s apparel.
...The Panel f inds the SUPERDRY trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, which, by
adding an additional letter “p” is a deliberate misspelling of the trademark. Accordingly, the disputed domain
name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2025-08-07 - Case Details
Brauchbar, Die Verwirkung im Kennzeichenrecht; unter Berücksichtigung der Regelung in der Europäischen Union, Bâle 2001, p. 49. See also The Procter & Gamble Company contre Triall SA,
WIPO Case No. DCH2014-0001. Laches implies that the right owner has tolerated the violation of its rights for a long period of time without opposing it and that the author of the violation has in the meantime acquired a position worthy of protection so that the right owner would lose its right to claim legal protection against the violation of its right (see Swiss Federal Court, judgment 4A_638/2009, c. 3.2 not published in ATF 136 III 225; judgment 4C.371/2005 c. 3.1 and the judgments cited, in SJ 2007 I p. 7 and in sic! 2006 p. 500); see also Artemis Suisse SA v. ArtemisRose AG, Manuela Gisler,
WIPO Case No. DCH2015-0024; The Procter & Gamble Company v. ...
2019-08-05 - Case Details
Complainant argues that the adjunction of the letters “j” and “p”, representing Japan, does not change the overall impression of the disputed domain name, and therefore, does not avoid the likelihood of confusion in the public’s mind.
...Previous UDRP panels have found that when a domain name includes dictionary terms, which is the present case with the addition of the “j” and “p” letters representing Japan, such terms do not change the overall impression of the disputed domain name, and therefore, this does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity.
...
2019-09-02 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration
and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE
PANEL DECISION
GA Modefine
S.A. –v- Sparco P/L
Case No.
D 2001-0370
1.The Parties
The Complainant is GA Modefine
S.A, Represented by, Avvocato Mariacristina Rapisardi, Via Ariosto, 6-6901 Lugano,
Switzerland.
...The Registrar has confirmed
that armaniexchange.net ("the Domain Name") was registered through
Network Solutions, Inc and that Sparco P/L ("the Respondent") is the
current registrant. The Registrar has further confirmed that the Policy is applicable
to the Domain Name.
...
2001-05-11 - Case Details
The intention in registering such "typo-sites" is often to profit by selling such domain names to those with rightful claims to them (Complaint p.8).
i) As a result of such consumer confusion, Neuberger Berman is likely to suffer diverted traffic, loss of consumer goodwill, a resulting loss of sales, and inestimable damage to its reputation as a provider of online information and services.
...k) Upon information and belief, Respondent, Alfred Jacobsen, established shareholder accounts with Complainant during 1992, 1994, 1996, 1997 and 1998 (Complaint p. 10).
l) Under WIPO case precedent, Respondent’s "passive holding" of amounts to bad faith. ...
2000-06-15 - Case Details