The MIGROS Trademark is registered in many jurisdictions around the world, including:
Jurisdiction
Trademark No.
Registration Date
Switzerland
P-405500
September 27, 1994
International Registration (designating China)
637252
February 13, 1995
China
6762810
September 28, 2010
The Complainant is also the holder of various domain names incorporating the MIGROS Trademark, including and . ...
2015-08-24 - Case Details
The Complainant owns a number of trademarks for ACQUA DI GIO' for perfumes and clothes of which the following are representative:
ACQUA DI GIO', United States registration, principal register, registered September 1, 1998, registration number 2185423 (serial number 75226000), class 3;
ACQUA DI GIO', international trademark, registered January 14, 1997, registration number 668975, classes 3, 25;
ACQUA DI GIO', Community Trademark, International Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market, registered January 30, 2001, registration number 505669, classes 3, 25;
ACQUA DI GIO', Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property, registered January 14, 1997, registration number P-435049, classes 3, 25.
The Complainant also owns trademarks for GIO' and GIO' DE GIORGIO ARMANI.
...
2015-05-29 - Case Details
The Complainant owns a number of trademarks for ACQUA DI GIO' for perfumes and clothes of which the following are representative:
ACQUA DI GIO', United States registration, principal register, registered September 1, 1998, registration number 2185423 (serial number 75226000), class 3;
ACQUA DI GIO', international trademark, registered January 14, 1997, registration number 668975, classes 3, 25;
ACQUA DI GIO', Community Trademark, International Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market, registered January 30, 2001, registration number 505669, classes 3, 25;
ACQUA DI GIO', Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property, registered January 14, 1997, registration number P-435049, classes 3, 25.
The Complainant also owns trademarks for GIO' and GIO' DE GIORGIO ARMANI.
...
2015-05-29 - Case Details
The Respondents' registration and use of the Disputed Domain Names indicates that such registration and use was done for the specific purpose of trading on the name and reputation of the Complainants and the Complainants' Marks. 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. ...
2017-01-03 - Case Details
The specific cumulative circumstances in this case in which the Domain Name is almost identical to the Trademarks and in which Respondent has provided no evidence whatsoever of any actual or contemplated good-faith use of the Domain Name (the Panel notes in particular Respondent's current use to sell (without prescription) Complainant's product and competitors' products), are indicative of bad faith on the part of Respondent in its registration of the Domain Name as well (see The Coca-Cola Company v. P. Engbers,
WIPO Case No. DNL2012-0037; and Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,
WIPO Case No. ...
2016-11-17 - Case Details
Andrea Picaro,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0881 and GA Modefine S.A. v. Sparco P/L,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0419.
3 Access made on September 5, 2017. See section 4.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). ...
2017-09-25 - Case Details
The Complainant has filed a report made by an investigation agency “Greves Protection Management (P) Ltd. (Greves Report). The subject of the Greves Report states it is an: “Investigation into the use of domain name bhartiglobal.com by M/s Bharti International Trade Co. ...
2017-06-30 - Case Details
As an initial matter, previous UDRP panels have found confusing similarity existed even where other words were included in a domain name that incorporated in its entirety a complainant's trademark. See, e.g., F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. P Martin,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0323 (finding confusing similarity where the domain name incorporated both the complainant's trademark and word associated with a rival brand). ...
2017-02-20 - Case Details
Complainant further argues that when a Disputed Domain Name incorporates an entire trademark with only the addition of common, non-distinctive words, it is still confusingly similar to the trademark as the additional terms do not eliminate the confusing similiarity. See, Hoffmann-LaRoche AG v. P Martin,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0323; Dixons Group Plc. v. Mr. Abu Abdullaah,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0843; V&S Vin & Sprit AB v. ...
2016-12-13 - Case Details
In about December 2015, the business was sold to “A P Eagers”. The Respondent appears to have been one of the losing bidders.
Subsequently, in the second half of 2016 (probably not before August 2016), the Complainant acquired the business.
...
2017-07-07 - Case Details
Complainant has provided evidence that immediately following that transmission Respondent either deactivated that email address or blacklisted emails from Complainant's counsel (see Exhibit P, Id.)
After this Complaint was filed, and the proxy service was removed, the resulting new WhoIs listing identified the registrant as "Saidul Chowdhury", and provided a new administrative email address. ...
2016-01-21 - Case Details
D2006-1215 (transferring ), citing Gordon Sumner, p/k/a Sting v. Michael Urvan,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0596. In this regard, Complainant’s affidavit attested to approximately USD 7 million in revenue since 2000. ...
2015-10-29 - Case Details
The Complainant does not even plead that the Respondent did so; its allegations are that the Respondent's sole business is trafficking in domain names which "prevents others from registering [such domain names]", for potential resale at a profit (Amended Complaint, p. 9); and that the Respondent wouldn't sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant at the Complainant's preferred price. ...
2016-11-01 - Case Details
Factual Background
The Complainant, Bank Nagelmackers N.V., is a Belgian bank founded by P. Nagelmackers in 1747, making it the oldest bank in Belgium. The bank remained independent until 2001, when it merged with Delta Lloyd Bank. ...
2016-06-28 - Case Details
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), European Court of Justice Case No C-383/99 P.
This Panel agrees with the Complainant’s assertion that the prefix in the disputed domain name, i.e. the use of “get” before “lifeok”, is insufficient to appropriately distinguish the domain name with the Complainant’s trademark. ...
2016-04-26 - Case Details
However, as previous panels have stated, “it would be a mistake to conclude that mere registration of a trademark creates a legitimate interest under the Policy.” Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847. Here, no legitimate interest arises as both application and registration of said MONSTER ARMY trademark took place well after Complainant had served Respondent with a cease and desist letter.
...
2016-03-31 - Case Details
It owns a number of trademarks for the term "ETH" the earliest of which is Swiss registration P-526262, registered on June 16, 2004. It does not have any registrations in Brazil where the Respondent is based. ...
2016-04-22 - Case Details
VistaPrint Technologies Ltd., supra.; Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847).
Finally, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has it acquired trademark rights pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy.
...
2016-03-11 - Case Details
Ludwig Manfred Jacob
005347505
November 6, 2007
5, 10, 32, 44
CH
DR. JACOB'S
Dr. Ludwig Manfred Jacob
P-565675
December 13,
2007
5, 10, 32, 44
NO, PH, TR,
US, AT, BX,
CN, CZ, EG,
ES, FR, HR,
HU, IR, IT,
MA, PL, RO, RU, SI, US
DR. ...
2017-12-19 - Case Details
Covex Farma S.L.,
WIPO Case No. D2008-1379; and Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847. However, while a Texas certificate confers fewer presumptive rights than would a valid service mark registration, the Panel does not find that the Respondent has filed for said certificate solely to deflect potential UDRP proceedings against him. ...
2017-09-13 - Case Details