D2012-1198 (“the supplemental filings should address relevant issues which were not known by the filing party at the time that it filed its documents […]”); Mani Brothers, LLC v. Lincoln Gasking,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0097 (“[p]anels that have allowed additional pleadings generally do so only when the response includes a matter that the complainant could not reasonably have anticipated when the complaint was filed”).
...
2013-03-04 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Ape & Partners S. p. A. and PJS International S.A. v. Davis Lin
Case No. D2013-1756
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Ape & Partners S.p.A. of Segusino, Italy and PJS International S.A. of Luxembourg, Luxembourg, represented by Perani Pozzi Associati - Studio Legale, United States of America (“US”).
...
2013-12-17 - Case Details
Some of the trademark registrations in favour of the Complainant in India comprising the word “Tata” in various classes, along with printouts from the trademarks registry website pertaining to the said trademarks, have been filed along with the Complaint as Annexure P. The Complainant has exclusive rights to use its trademark TATA in relation to the goods covered under the registrations. ...
2014-01-10 - Case Details
The Respondent is MK Sound of Los Angeles, California, USA, represented by the Law Offices of Jonathan P. Chodos, USA.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Network Solutions, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. ...
2013-08-14 - 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 reputation, 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.”).
...
2025-12-29 - Case Details
Although the mark is f igurative,
especially in presenting a highly stylized letter “P”, it is clearly meant to spell the invented name PASINO.
Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy.
...
2025-06-27 - Case Details
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent, in not responding to the Complaint, has failed to invoke any of the circumstances, which could demonstrate, pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. This entitles the P...
In that sense, and according to the evidence submitted, there is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain names, and furthermore, the Complainant indeed states that it has not given the Respondent permission to us...
...
2025-11-18 - Case Details
The Disputed Domain Name was registered on October 18, 2023, and, as described by Complainant (and as confirmed by a screenshot provided in the Complaint), resolves to a website that displays the word SNWFLKE in conjunction with a snowflake icon and p...
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
B. Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. ...
2025-11-18 - Case Details
First, based on the circumstances here, the Panel concludes, on the balance of probabilities, that the
Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name had been done for the purpose of trading
on the name and reputation of the Complainant and its HANSON BRIDGETT 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”).
...
2025-11-14 - 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 reputation, 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”).
...
2025-12-18 - Case Details
Here, the Panel f inds that the Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name had been
done for the specific purpose of trading upon and targeting the mark and reputation of the Complainant,
since the Disputed Domain Name was used to resolve to a website that purported to offer goods identical to
those on the Complainant’s website. 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”). ...
2025-09-12 - Case Details
Here, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name had been
done for the specific purpose of trading upon and targeting the mark and reputation of the Complainant,
since the Disputed Domain Name was used to resolve to a website that purported to offer services identical
to those offered by 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”). ...
2025-10-03 - Case Details
First, 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 SCHWEIGER 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”).
...
2025-03-03 - Case Details
TMA470636 (registered February 6, 1997), Germany Trade Mark No. 2011465 (registered March 19,
1992), and Swiss Trade Mark No. P-389239 (registered January 22, 1992), all for the figurative trademark of
a diamond shape containing the letters “MCD” and the words “More Core Division” (the “MCD figurative
trademark”).
...
2025-03-17 - Case Details
Palmer’s nickname.
5.3 The Complainant further contends that the use made by the Respondent of the Domain Name does
not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services, citing in this respect the decision in Madonna
Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi, WIPO Case No. D2000-0847.
5.4 Finally, the Complainant maintains that the Domain Name was registered in order to trade upon the
fame of Mr. ...
2025-04-22 - Case Details
First, 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 CORNING 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”).
...
2025-04-08 - Case Details
Olariu Romeo/Orv Fin Group S.L., WIPO Case No. D2008-0792; F.
Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. P Martin, WIPO Case No. D2009-0323; RapidShare AG, Christian Schmid v.
Protected Domain Services/Dmytro Gerasymenko, WIPO Case No. ...
2025-08-12 - Case Details
The Panel
finds that these elements create a presumption of bad faith, see 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.” ...
2025-09-23 - 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 reputation, 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”).
...
2025-09-22 - Case Details
As is stated in WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4:
“[P]anels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly
similar (particularly domain names comprising typos […]) to a famous or widely-known trademark by an
unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith.”
...
2025-02-06 - Case Details