In this regard, the Panel refers to the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4, which states “[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”.
...
2024-02-19 - Case Details
In this regard, the Panel refers to the WIPO Overview 3.0, section
3.1.4, which states “[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.” ...
2024-03-04 - Case Details
In this regard, the Panel refers to the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4, which states “[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.”
...
2024-01-22 - Case Details
The Complainant is a member of the Standard & Poor’s (S&P) 500 Index, and its common stock is traded on
the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol EFX. The Complainant employs approximately 11,000
people worldwide.
...
2024-04-05 - Case Details
The addition of other terms to a petitioner’s mark
should not prevent a finding of similarity under the first element (see, for example, Klarna Bank AB v. P. I.,
WIPO Case No. DSE2018-0052, which involved the domain names and ).
...
2024-04-03 - Case Details
D2001-0903,
highlighting WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition
(“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 2.13.1, “[p]anels have categorically held that the use of a domain name for
illegal activity (e.g., the sale of counterfeit goods (...), or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or
legitimate interests on a respondent”.
...
2024-04-18 - Case Details
In the informal email communications to the Center of February 21, 2024, the Respondent simply stated
“[S]top spamming me” and in its last email communication dated February 26, 2024 asked to “[P]lease
remove me from your mailing list. I do not authorize you to continue emailing when I have requested you to
stop. ...
2024-04-15 - Case Details
Lianfa, WIPO Case No. DPW2014-0003; L'Oréal v. Vitaly P Pak, WIPO Case No. D2013-0291; L'Oréal v.
Wen Tao, WIPO Case No. 2012-0521; L’Oreal v Rampe Purda / Privacy--Protect.org, WIPO Case No.
...
2024-08-23 - Case Details
DBR2023-0013; e Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft e Volkswagen do Brasil Indústria de Veículos
Automotores Ltda. v. P. C. J., Caso OMPI No. DBR2015-0005.
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=dbr2023-0013
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?...
2024-09-02 - Case Details
Moreover, the Panel finds DDIL is recognizable within the disputed domain name, differing in the
abbreviation only by the addition of the letter “p”. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly
similar to DDIL for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2024-09-02 - Case Details
The Respondent requested that the language of the proceeding be English, referring to the language of the
Registration Agreement, the language of the “[P]arties’ historical communication”, the Respondent’s lack of
fluency in Spanish, and arguing that the conduct of the proceeding in Spanish would prejudice its ability to
participate effectively. ...
2024-05-22 - Case Details
In this regard, the Panel refers to the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4, which states “[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”.
...
2024-05-20 - Case Details
In assessing the totality of the evidence provided by the Complainant, the Panel takes into account the
following:
The Complainant on its website highlights prominently its POINT P brand for its goods and services.
There is no evidence regarding the duration and use of SONEN as a trademark, a source identifier for the
Complainant’s goods or services.
...
2022-12-01 - Case Details
While this Panel does not have sufficient evidence to decide whether these products are counterfeit, it can be inferred that the Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Names for the specific purpose of trading on the name and reputation of the Complainant and its MILLE MIGLIA Mark. See Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com",
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847 ("[t]he only plausible explanation for Respondent's actions appears to be an intentional effort to trade upon the fame of Complainant's name and mark for commercial gain" and "[t]hat purpose is a violation of the Policy, as well as U.S. ...
2015-07-20 - Case Details
In this scenario, the Complainant first registered the BELVIQ trademark in July 2011 in Switzerland,
and secured its first US Trademark registration for BELVIQ (US Reg. No. 4,080,253) in January 2012 for “[p]harmaceutical preparations for human use, namely, pharmaceutical preparations to treat or prevent obesity; pharmaceutical preparations for weight management, weight loss and the maintenance of weight loss” in Class 5. ...
2014-12-19 - Case Details
By so doing, the Respondent is trading on the name and reputation of the Complainant and its LEGO Mark. See Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com",
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847 ("[t]he only plausible explanation for Respondent's actions appears to be an intentional effort to trade upon the fame of Complainant's name and mark for commercial gain" and "[t]hat purpose is a violation of the Policy, as well as U.S. ...
2015-01-23 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that the Respondent is fraudulently trading on the goodwill established by the Complainant in its registered marks and intentionally attempting to mislead consumers and cites Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com",
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847.
The Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith:
The Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name was registered on June 16, 2017, in the name of Emmanuel Dube, domiciled in Johannesburg, South Africa. ...
2017-12-26 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant submits that it is a worldwide market leader in toothpaste, toothbrushes, whitening, rinse and related products through its P&G Oral Care Division. It states that it has used the name and trademark CREST since 1955 when the first fluoride toothpaste was introduced and that it currently uses the mark principally in connection with toothpaste, mouthwash and home whitening kits.
...
2015-08-31 - Case Details
Richi Industry S.r.l.,
WIPO Case No. D2001-1206; Utensilerie Associate S. p. A. v. C & M,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0159; Shaw Industries Group Inc., Columbia Insurance Company v. Wan-Fu China, Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2015-06-18 - Case Details
Mark:
Classes of Goods & Services:
Date Registered:
1,182,587
PURAVANKARA PROJECTS LIMITED
19
March 12, 2003
1,182,588
PURAVANKARA
19
March 12, 2003
1,266,089
PURAVANKARA
37
February 9, 2004
1,266,090
PURAVANKARA PROJECTS LIMITED and "P" logo
37
February 9, 2004
1,474,154
PURAVANKARA
7, 19 & 37
July 28, 2006
1,591,995
PURAVANKARA and logo
35
August 20, 2007
1,591,997
PURAVANKARA and logo
36
August 20, 2007
1,591,998
PURAVANKARA and logo
39
August 20, 2007
The PURAVANKARA domain names
4.A.4 The Complaint exhibits 162 domain names incorporating the name "Puravankara" owned by the Company. ...
2015-08-24 - Case Details