Sachverhalt
Die Gesuchstellerin ist Inhaberin der Schweizer Marke Nr. P-461967 TEMPOBRAIN, welche am 22. Dezember 1998 hinterlegt wurde und für die Dienstleistungen der Personal- und Stellenvermittlung sowie Personalmanagementberatung in Klasse 35 eingetragen ist. ...Bestand von Kennzeichenrechten
Die Gesuchstellerin hat dargetan, dass sie Inhaberin der Schweizer Wortmarke Nr. P-461'967 TEMPOBRAIN ist, welche am 22. Dezember 1998 hinterlegt wurde und in Klasse 35 für die Dienstleistungen der Personal- und Stellenvermittlung sowie Personalmanagementberatung eingetragen ist (Gesuchsbeilage Nr. 9).
...
2015-09-02 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on August 21, 2017.
The Center appointed William P. Knight as the sole panelist in this matter on September 6, 2017. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. ...Decision
For 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
Sole Panelist
Date: September 8, 2017...
2017-09-26 - Case Details
ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER
EXPERTENENTSCHEID
D. S.v. P. K.
Verfahren Nr. DCH2025-0016
1. Die Parteien
Die Gesuchstellerin ist D. S., Schweiz.
...Andrea Mondini
Experte
Datum: Januar 28, 2026
EXPERTENENTSCHEID
D. S.v. P. K.
Verfahren Nr. DCH2025-0016
2. Streitiger Domain-Name
3. Verfahrensablauf
7. Entscheidung...
2026-02-03 - Case Details
Supplemental Response, Annex C, Asset Purchase Agreement, Section 1.9, at p. 5. No evidence was produced to the Panel as to the closing or as to the satisfaction or waiver of the stated conditions.
...Supplemental Response, Annex C, Asset Purchase Agreement, § 2.11(f), p. 16. If Respondent were the acquiring party in the Asset Purchase Agreement in this case, it could so have protected itself.
...
2008-01-07 - Case Details
D2007-0915 (,): “Potential customers would, in the view of the [p]anel and based on the evidence of the Complainant’s General Counsel, instantly recognize the combined expressions in the domain names as being concerned with Red Bull. ...This amounts to evidence of bad faith use under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Accordingly, the [p]anel finds that the [d]omain [n]ame was registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith”. The screen-print of the Respondent’s website presenting the link to “www.redbullmobile.at” was attached as Annex F1 to the Complaint.
...
2010-11-19 - Case Details
Morgan v. Resource Marketing, WIPO Case No. D2000-0035 at p. 3 ( found identical to J.P. Morgan mark). The disputed domain names are also confusingly similar to Complainant’s Ahmanson trade name.
5.8. ...The fact that such criticism will likely be apparent once an Internet user reaches Respondent’s site does not change the fact that Respondent will have used the Ahmanson name and Ahmanson Ranch mark to divert Internet traffic to his site. See Monty Roberts at p. 10; DFO at p. 4.
It should be noted that Complainant is in no way seeking to constrain Respondent’s criticism of Ahmanson, its parent company Washington Mutual, or the Ahmanson Ranch project. ...
2001-02-06 - Case Details
Factual Background
The Finter Bank Zurich is a well-known private banking institution in Switzerland which owns the following trademarks: Swiss trademark no. P-418617 FINTER BANK ZURICH, registered on September 12, 1995; Swiss picture-combination trademark no. P-418634 registered on September 12, 1995; Swiss picture-combination trademark no. P-427141 registered on June 21, 1996; International trademark no. 645522 FINTER BANK ZURICH and International picture-combination trademark no. 645521 both registered on September 12, 1995, for Austria, Benelux-States, Germany, Spain, France, Liechtenstein and Portugal.
...
2006-03-21 - Case Details
Factors that a panel might consider include (a) whether the name is common (which
reduces the possibility of acquiring secondary meaning) - see Gordon Sumner,
p/k/a Sting v. Michael Urvan, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0596; (b) whether the name was used in connection with goods
or services in a commercial context; and (c) the time period over which the
name was so used. ...Gervais
Presiding Panelist
David Perkins
Panelist
Manuel Moreno-Torres
Panelist
Dated: December 15, 2006
1 OJ L 011, 14.1.1994, p. 1.
2 OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 1....
2006-12-27 - 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. ...D2007-1668; Panavision, Inc. and Panavision International, L. P. v. Ed Meyer, d/b/a/ Panavisions Eyewear and Sunglasses, Domains by Proxy, Inc., and M.P.W., Inc. d/b/a Panavisions Eyewear and Sunglasses, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2008-05-29 - Case Details
ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
OneTab Ltd v. Dron P Subedi
Case No. D2025-0685
1. The Parties
The Complainant is OneTab Ltd, United Kingdom, internally represented.
The Respondent is Dron P Subedi, United States of America (“United States”).
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...
2025-04-08 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Cameron Thomaz p/k/a Wiz Khalifa and Wiz Khalifa Trademark, LLC v. Moniker Privacy Services / Kyle Lynch
Case No. D2014-1525
1. The Parties
Complainants are Cameron Thomaz p/k/a1 Wiz Khalifa and Wiz Khalifa Trademark, LLC of New York, New York, United States of America (“USA”), represented by Pryor Cashman, LLP, New York, New York, USA.
...
2014-11-20 - Case Details
Zhijun Guo,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0184; LEGO Juris A/S v. P N S Enterprises,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0170; LEGO Juris A/S v. David Palmer,
WIPO Case No. D2008-1826; LEGO Juris A/S v. ...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. ...
2010-05-27 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Registrant's default on March 11, 2010.
The Center appointed John P. Gaffney as the sole panelist in this matter on March 25, 2010. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. ...The Registrant has not provided any evidence that the registration of the disputed domain name was not effected in bad faith in the sense of paragraph 3.4.8.3 of the Rules (incorrectly referred to in the Complaint as “[p]aragraph 3 (b)(ix)(3) of the Rules”).
On January 18, 2010, the Complainant wrote to the Registrant requesting that the disputed domain name be transferred and seeking its agreement to comply with certain undertakings preventing future trade mark infringements. ...
2010-04-19 - Case Details
Panel's understanding of the Policy is that although the initial burden to prove [r]espondent's bad faith in the registration or the use of the disputed [d]omain [n]ame relies squarely on the shoulders of [c]omplainant, such obligation is only to make out a prima facie case, and once it has done so, as [p]anel finds it did in the present case, it is then incumbent upon the [r]espondent to either justify or explain its business conduct (if not to demonstrate the contrary). Failure to do so will, in some circumstances, enable the [p]anel to draw a negative inference. In the case at hand, the [r]espondent has elected (or failed) not to put forward any justification for its registration and use of the [d]omain [n]ame and, in the circumstances, the [p]anel does draw a negative inference out of such omission. ...
2010-07-16 - Case Details
The Respondent has used the disputed domain name to engage in criminal and fraudulent activities. M. P[…] is the Corporate Vice President of Alternative Energy & Project Development in Complainant’s home office. Respondent has been impersonating Mr. P[…] to operate a sophisticated “419 scam” by contacting people who have applied for, or indicated an interest in, fictitious job openings posted by the Respondent on various job boards. ...
2013-12-23 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to those trademarks because it differs from the trademarks by the substitution of two letters, "ck", for the single letter "p" in the Complainant's trademarks – (disregarding the ".com" component of the disputed domain name as a functional aspect of the domain name system: Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...The fact that two letters have been used instead of the letter "p" makes the case somewhat different to the typical typosquatting case. It seems unlikely that someone would mistakenly type in both a "c" and a "k" for the "p".
...
2015-04-22 - Case Details
Brauchbar, Die Verwirkung
im Kennzeichenrecht; unter Berücksichtigung der Regelung in der Europäischen Union, Basel 2001, p. 49.
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
page 5
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).
In this case, the conditions for admitting laches are not met because it is not established that the Claimant
would have tolerated the violation of its rights for a long period of time without opposing it as a result of the
registration of the Disputed Domain Name by the Respondent. ...
2022-05-12 - Case Details
The Disputed Domain Name comprises an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s WHATSAPP Trademark
with an omission of the letter “h” and the second letter “p”, preceded by the two letters “gb” and with the
generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. The Disputed Domain Name appear to be a typical example of
typosquatting, i.e., a misspelling of the Complainant’s WHATSAPP Trademark. ...The Panel finds that omission of letters “h” and “p” in the Disputed Domain Name in this case does
not prevent the Disputed Domain Name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s WHATSAPP
Trademark.
...
2025-07-09 - Case Details
ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
P/F Smyril Line v. Seo Forlyfe
Case No. D2024-4240
1. The Parties
The Complainant is P/F Smyril Line, Denmark, represented by Budde Schou A/S, Denmark.
...Gardner
Sole Panelist
Date: December 3, 2024
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
P/F Smyril Line v. Seo Forlyfe
Case No. D2024-4240
1. The Parties
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
3. ...
2024-12-06 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Koninklijke Boskalis Westminster N.V. v. Privacy Administrator, Anonymize, Inc. / P. Trevor Zhen
Case No. D2019-3033
1. The Parties
Complainant is Koninklijke Boskalis Westminster N.V., the Netherlands, represented by AKD N.V., the Netherlands.
Respondent is Privacy Administrator, Anonymize, Inc., United States of America (“United States”) / P. Trevor Zhen, Nicaragua, self-represented. 1
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Epik, Inc. ...
2020-02-24 - Case Details