Procedural Issue - Consolidation of multiple Respondents
According to Paragraph 10(e) of the Rules a “[p]anel shall decide a request by a Party to consolidate multiple
domain name disputes in accordance with the Policy and these Rules”. ...Procedural Issue - Consolidation of multiple Respondents
According to Paragraph 10(e) of the Rules a “[p]anel shall decide a request by a Party to consolidate multiple domain name disputes in accordance with the Policy and these Rules”. ...
2023-07-24 - Case Details
Upon discovering that the Respondent had registered the Domain Name, the Complainants
made “a pretextual bid of $60,000,000” for the Domain Name. (Complaint,
p.8.) A negotiation period followed, during which the Complainants and Respondent
traded various offers and counteroffers. ...The Complainants repeatedly make the material misstatement that the Complainants possess “exclusive” rights in the mark:
- “This Complaint is based upon the Service Mark TERMINATOR … in which Complainant AGV Productions own [sic] an exclusive license.” (Complaint, p. 5.)
- “Complainant AGV Productions acquired the exclusive right to use the name and mark TERMINATOR, and derivatives thereof…” (Complaint, p. 5...
2004-07-28 - Case Details
P D S, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0359, ) and the Respondent himself
has been described as "a known cyber squatter who registers the trademarks
of others as domain names" (Arla, ekonomisk förening v. P D S and
Tony Lennartsson, WIPO Case No. D2000-0151,
).
In sum, the Respondent
has not submitted convincing evidence that any of the circumstances enumerated
in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy would be present in this matter.
...
2004-04-19 - Case Details
As an additional circumstance suggesting bad faith, the Panel notes that there has been no Response and in this case, as stated in Sports Holdings, Inc., supra, “it is open for the [p]anel to infer a prima facie case of bad faith registration. The [p]anel also notes that the [r]espondent has used the present domain name in a commercial website. The evidence before the [p]anel indicates that the [r]espondent has used (or allowed the use) of the domain name for the purpose of some apparently commercial nature from which the [r]espondent (or a related third party) presumably derives or intends to derive revenue. ...
2009-10-27 - Case Details
Whois ID Theft Protection,
WIPO Case No. D2006-1146, “it is open for the [p]anel to infer a prima facie case of bad faith registration. The [p]anel also notes that the [r]espondent has used the present domain name in a commercial website. The evidence before the [p]anel indicates that the [r]espondent has used (or allowed the use) of the domain name for the purpose of some apparently commercial nature from which the [r]espondent (or a related third party) presumably derives or intends to derive revenue. ...
2011-01-21 - Case Details
The name and the mark are nearly indistinguishable, the name merely substituting a letter “l” for the second letter “p” in the mark. The Respondent, invoking a classic typo-squatting procedure, intends to reach Internet users who, in seeking the Complainant’s more popular domain name, accidentally type an extra “l” instead of a second “p”...The Panel agrees with the Complainant that the only difference is the substitution of a second letter “l” for the second letter “p” in the mark – the addition of the obligatory gTLD, “.com” offering no meaningful distinction whatsoever. ...
2011-01-07 - Case Details
Xuelin Bei, supra) that the trademark UPS is well-known and commonly referred to as a sequence of letters “u-p-s”;
(2) On the face, the selection of the Disputed Domain Name by the Respondent appears innocuous. In the absence of a context, one may vacillate between referring to it as a sequence of letters “q-d-u-p-s” and pronouncing it as a word. However, once the context is revealed by the website resolved from the Disputed Domain Name, it is immediately apparent that the Disputed Domain Name is engineered and intended to be referred to as a sequence of letters “q-d-u-p-s”;
(3) The letters “qdups” do not exist within the content of the website. ...
2010-09-02 - Case Details
The difference between the disputed domain name and
the earlier trademarks of the Complainant is a letter “p” in the disputed domain name instead of an “o” in the
trademark, which does not prevent the finding of confusing similarity between them.
...Since the difference between the SLD of the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s
CARREFOUR trademark is in the substitution of the letter “o” with the letter “p”, and regarding the fact that
those letters are adjacent to each other in an ordinary QWERTY keyboard, the Panel considers this
difference to be typosquatting. ...
2022-06-10 - Case Details
ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Les Editions P Amaury v. Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy
ehf / Rosie Lynch
Case No. D2022-1959
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Les Editions P Amaury, France, represented by Me Haas, France.
The Respondent is Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / Rosie Lynch, United
Kingdom.
2. ...
2022-08-08 - Case Details
C.V., Mercado Libre Venezuela, S.R.L.,
Ebazar.com.br, Ltda., Tech Fund, S.R.L. v. P Mercado Pago,
Pedro Yukio Sato
Case No. D2022-0624
1. The Parties
The Complainants are Mercado Libre, Inc., Argentina, Mercado Libre SRL, Argentina, Mercado Libre Chile,
Ltda., Chile, Mercado Libre, S. de R. ...C.V., Mexico, Mercado Libre Venezuela, S.R.L., Venezuela,
Ebazar.com.br, Ltda, Brazil, and Tech Fund, S.R.L., Uruguay, (hereinafter collectively referred to as
“the Complainants”), represented by Marval O´Farrell & Mairal, Argentina.
The Respondent is P Mercado Pago, Pedro Yukio Sato, Brazil.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with
NameCheap, Inc. ...
2022-05-05 - Case Details
Paragraph 10(c) of the Rules
provides, in relevant part, that “the [p]anel shall ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with
due expedition”. There is no requirement to consolidate. ...The same section of the WIPO Overview 3.0 also
states that “[p]rocedural efficiency would also underpin panel consideration of such a consolidation
scenario”.
...
2023-07-18 - Case Details
It refers to its trade marks for SODEXO, full details of one of these marks having been set out above, and says that the only differences between its mark and the disputed domain name are that the letter “p” (which is adjacent to the letter “o”, on QWERTY keyboards) has replaced the first “o” in SODEXO and the letters “brs” have been added after the mark. ...The disputed domain name includes the Complainant’s SODEXO mark in its entirety, save that the first “o” in the mark has been replaced by a “p”, these letters being adjacent to each other on a QWERTY computer keyboard. The letters “brs” follow the term “spdexo” in the disputed domain name. ...
2021-11-22 - Case Details
Moreover, the
difference is limited to the addition of the consonant “p” as the final letter and regardless of the generic Top
Level Domain (“gTLD”) extension “.com”.
...The Panel finds that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name that contains the
Complainant’s trademark PRAVIX, merely including the letters “a” and “p”. This kind of conduct is
considered as an act of “typosquatting” or registering a domain name that is a common misspelling of a mark
in which a party has rights and has often been recognized as evidence of bad faith registration per se. ...
2023-06-20 - Case Details
ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Philip Morris Products S.A. v. deniz altunoglu, RAK P MARKET NG
Case No. D2024-0421
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Philip Morris Products S.A., Switzerland, represented by D.M. Kisch Inc., South Africa.
The Respondent is deniz altunoglu, RAK P MARKET NG, Türkiye.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GMO Internet, Inc. d/b/a Discount-
Domain.com and Onamae.com (the “Registrar”).
3. ...
2024-04-15 - Case Details
The disputed domain name varies from the Complainant's trademark by two letters [g] and [p], [p] being an intentional typo for the letter [o]. The mere addition in the disputed domain name of [gp] which is a typo of the generic term "go" does not negate the confusing similarity with the Complainant's trademark. ...The sole addition of the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com" and of the two letters [g] and [p] in front of "petplan" is not sufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant's trademark.
...
2016-12-16 - Case Details
In this regard, the Respondent asserts he provided all investment money for the websites from his personal funds and that he does not accept advertising or seek any other type funding for the disputed domain name websites (Response p. 3).
However, at various other junctures in his Response, the Respondent admits to having had agreements with Etoys.com and Amazon.com whereby these companies would pay the Respondent for clients arriving via the Respondent's website (Response p. 2). ...The Respondent also acknowledges that at one point he sought to become licensed to use the Complainant's NASCAR mark (Response p. 2). Thus, the Respondent can not benefit from the non-commercial fair use provision of the Policy at 4c(iii) in order to claim a legitimate right or interest in the disputed domain names.
...
2002-01-25 - Case Details
The Complainant concedes that the Respondent has "a limited right to use the FADAL trademark properly within a web site to nomitively [sic] describe genuine pre-owned FADAL machine tools," Complaint at p. 22 (emphasis in the original), but challenges the Respondent’s incorporation of the FADAL mark in its domain names. ...Although the Complaint includes "fadals.com" in the list of the disputed names, the Respondent’s stipulation that it is similar to the Complainant’s mark and offer to transfer it, Response at p. 6, n. 2, moot the issue and the Panel will simply ratify the Respondent’s offer in its order....
2001-03-14 - Case Details
Respondent owns and operates a fragrance store under
the name A&P Fragrances. On September 17, 2005, Respondent registered the
domain name . Respondent’s web site was initially
used in a way that directly competed with Complainant’s business by selling
fragrances to Internet consumers. ...D2000-0270
(June 6, 2000).
Respondent operates as A&P Fragrances and has not, until recently, held
itself to be associated with the mark PERFUMENIA. The first time Respondent
used “Perfumenia” was in its registration for the disputed domain
name. ...
2006-05-30 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration
and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE
PANEL DECISION
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Xrt Services P/L
Case No. D2006-0410
1. The Parties
The Complainant is F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Basel, Switzerland.
The Respondent is Xrt Services P/L, Xrt Services, Bunall, Australia.
2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names , ,
, and
are all registered with RegisterFly.com, Inc.
3. ...
2006-06-19 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
G&P Net S.p.A. v. Kenn Lee
Case No. D2011-0122
1. The Parties
The Complainant is G&P Net S.p.A. of Altopascio (LU), Italy represented by Società Italiana Brevetti of Italy.
...
2011-03-17 - Case Details