The Complainant is the owner of various registrations for the trademark CENTURY, including for example:
- Switzerland trademark registration number P-375224 for the word mark CENTURY, registered on March
14, 1990 for watches in International Class 14; and
- United States trademark registration number 1386743 for a stylized word mark CENTURY, registered on
March 18, 1986 for chronometers in International Class 14.
...
2024-01-03 - Case Details
El
nombre de dominio en disputa se utiliza para alojar un sitio web que incumple los requisitos de la prueba de
Oki Data,2 ya que se hace pasar por la Demandante, sin incluir información sobre la falta de relación entre
las Partes y tratando de engañar a los consumidores.
1 Véanse, entre otras, IM Production v. 50448207 Qiang Pa [ . . . ] @live.com, 1290044 Q P [ . . . ] @live.com, Caso OMPI No.
D2012-0112; IM Production v. Ted Chen, Caso OMPI No. D2014-1486; IM Production v. yansheng zhang, GNAME.COM PTE. ...
2024-02-16 - Case Details
The Complainant is a
member of Standard & Poor’s (“S&P”) 500 Index, and its common stock is traded on the New York Stock
Exchange (NYSE) under the symbol EFX. ...
2025-11-24 - Case Details
Additionally, section 3.2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 provides that “[p]articular circumstances panels may
take into account in assessing whether the respondent’s registration of a domain name is in bad faith
include: (i) the nature of the domain name (e.g., a typo of a widely-known mark, or a domain name
incorporating the complainant’s mark plus an additional term such as a descriptive or geographic term, or
one that corresponds to the complainant’s area of activity or natural zone of expansion); [...] ...
2025-03-25 - Case Details
The Complainant operates or has investments in 24 countries in North America, Central and South America,
Europe, and Asia Pacific region, with approximately 11,000 employees. It is a member of Standard & Poor’s
(S&P) 500 Index, and its common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) under the
symbol EFX.
...
2025-03-20 - 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.” ...
2025-01-14 - Case Details
Here, the Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name
indicates that such registration and use had been done for the specific purpose of trading upon and targeting
the name, mark, and goodwill of the Complainant. 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”).
...
2025-03-05 - 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?...
2025-01-17 - Case Details
Additionally, section 3.2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 provides that “[p]articular circumstances panels may
take into account in assessing whether the respondent’s registration of a domain name is in bad faith
include: (i) the nature of the domain name (e.g., a typo of a widely-known mark, or a domain name
incorporating the complainant’s mark plus an additional term such as a descriptive or geographic term, or
one that corresponds to the complainant’s area of activity or natural zone of expansion); [...] ...
2025-01-14 - Case Details
The Complainant states that it was founded in 1979 in Mexico City by German entrepreneur Gerd P. Grimm,
with the aim of transforming the Mexican parcel delivery market by introducing the country’s first door-to-door
courier service. ...
2026-01-21 - Case Details
case=DAU2021-0025
page 5
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”. ...
2025-06-25 - Case Details
The Complainant is a member of Standard & Poor’s (S&P) 500 Index, and its common stock is traded on the
New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) under the symbol EFX.
...
2025-08-19 - 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.” ...
2024-06-28 - Case Details
case=D2012-0182
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 5
Second, based on the circumstances here, the Panel concludes that the Respondent’s registration and use
of the Disputed Domain Name had been done for the specific purpose of trading on the name and reputation
of the Complainant and its WOLFSPEED 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”).
...
2024-05-20 - Case Details
Section 3.2.1 of WIPO Overview 3.0 provides that “[p]articular circumstances panels may take into account
in assessing whether the respondent’s registration of a domain name is in bad faith include: (i) the nature of
the domain name (e.g., a typo of a widely-known mark, or a domain name incorporating the complainant’s
mark plus an additional term such as a descriptive or geographic term, or one that corresponds to the
complainant’s area of activity or natural zone of expansion) [...] ...
2024-05-10 - Case Details
Additionally, section 3.2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 provides that “[p]articular circumstances panels may
take into account in assessing whether the respondent’s registration of a domain name is in bad faith
include: (i) the nature of the domain name (e.g., a typo of a widely-known mark, or a domain name
incorporating the complainant’s mark plus an additional term such as a descriptive or geographic term, or
one that corresponds to the complainant’s area of activity or natural zone of expansion); [...] ...
2024-09-27 - Case Details
Complainant
By way of background, Complainant is the operator of several well-known mobile applications for ridesharing
and delivery services and is a public company traded on the New York Stock Exchange since May 2019 and
the S&P 500 since December 2023. Complainant asserts that as of December 31, 2023, Complainant had
operations in over 10,000 cities worldwide, approximately 30,400 employees globally, 150 million monthly
active platform consumers, and annual revenue of $37.281 billion.
...
2024-09-18 - Case Details
Here, the Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name
indicates that such registration and use had been done for the specific purpose of trading upon and targeting
the name and reputation of the Complainant. 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”).
...
2024-07-18 - 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”.
...
2024-07-17 - Case Details
On this basis, 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”. ...
2024-07-15 - Case Details