The Complainant is the proprietor of the following trademark registrations:
- Switzerland trademark number P-513796 for a combined mark including a device and the words “Bio check up CONCERNED BY YOUR HEALTH”, registered on August 27, 2003 in Classes 35, 42 and 44;
- International trademark number 816486 for a combined mark including a device and the words “Bio check up CONCERNED BY YOUR HEALTH”, registered on December 23, 2003 in Classes 35, 42 and 44 and designating Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Monaco and the Russian Federation;
- European Union Trade Mark number 009855727 for a combined trademark including the words “BioCheck Up” registered on March 27, 2013 with a filing date of March 31, 2011 in Class 44;
- France trademark number 4035524 for a combined trademark including the words “BioCheck Up” registered on August 1, 2014 with a filing date of March 31, 2011 in Class 44;
- Switzerland trademark number 618595 for a combined trademark including the words “BioCheck Up” registered on August 22, 2011 with a filing date of February 28, 2011 in Classes 35, 41, 42 and 44.
...
2017-07-03 - Case Details
By so doing, the Respondent is trading on the name and reputation of the Complainant and its FIRST CITIZENS Mark, which is a violation of the Policy. 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. ...
2015-03-11 - Case Details
A number of UDRP Panels have held that the fact that a respondent owns a trade mark registration may in appropriate cases be an important consideration, however, it is not an absolute bar to a complainant succeeding in appropriate cases under the Policy (see, e.g., Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847, BECA Inc v. CanAm Health Source Inc.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2015-03-04 - Case Details
Although the Disputed Domain Names do not currently resolve to active websites, it can also be inferred that the Respondents registered and used the Disputed Domain Names for the specific purpose of trading on the name and reputation of the Complainant and its LPL 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. ...
2015-03-18 - Case Details
With respect to those of the Disputed Domain Names that are being used in connection with websites offering for sale purportedly illegal copies of Complainant’s software, Complainant argues that bad faith exists pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy because “[p]anels have routinely found that a registrant’s use of a domain name for per se illegal activities constitutes bad faith registration and use.” ...
2014-12-01 - Case Details
D2000-1499, the panel stated "not all use prior to notice of the dispute can qualify as bona fide use". Further, the panel in Madonna Ciccone p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com",
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847, noted specifically that intentionally infringing use should not be viewed as bona fide use:
"We . . . conclude that use which intentionally trades on the fame of another cannot constitute a "bona fide" offering of goods or services. ...
2014-07-21 - Case Details
In fact, the Panel sees no plausible explanation for Respondent’s adoption and use of the term “newswarovskisale” in the disputed domain name and, accordingly, concludes that the disputed domain name was selected and used by Respondent to take advantage of the notoriety associated with the SWAROVSKI trademark and the goodwill attached thereto, with the intent to attract for commercial gain Internet users. See Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847.
In short, Complainant has satisfied its burden of providing sufficient evidence to make a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and Respondent has failed to provide the Panel with any of the types of evidence set forth in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy from which the Panel might conclude that Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.See Berlitz Investment Corp. v. ...
2014-03-20 - Case Details
This finding is consistent with previous UDRP panel decisions which have found that the combination of two trademarks in a domain name can, under certain circumstances, cause a likelihood of confusion, as both elements of such domain name, and their combination, can be understood as a reference to the Complainant (see A. P. Møller v. Web Society,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0135; Audi AG v. Hans Wolf,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0148; Saab Automobile AB et al. v. ...
2014-02-28 - Case Details
It was also done for the specific purpose of trading on the name and reputation of the Complainant and its trademarks. 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. ...
2014-05-01 - Case Details
Alex Tsypkin,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0946; Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847.
In light of this, the Panel further finds that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers. ...
2014-05-08 - Case Details
D2006-1215, the factors that a panel might consider when determining whether a complainant can claim common law or unregistered trade mark rights in his/her personal name 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." ...
2014-03-25 - Case Details
Whether or not respondents are categorically precluded from asserting the defenses of laches or acquiescence in UDRP proceedings, these are defenses that must be asserted affirmatively (see, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)), and Respondent failed affirmatively to assert them. The Panel agrees with the Policy’s principal concern of avoiding ongoing or future confusion as to the source of goods or services, and that the Policy’s aims are disserved by denying injunctive relief where confusion is likely. ...
2015-01-05 - Case Details
Es evidente que la confusión producida en el ciberespacio no puede dar lugar a derechos o intereses legítimos en términos de la Política. Ver Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna c. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com",
Caso OMPI No. D2000-0847 (un uso que intencionalmente se aprovecha de la reputación de un tercero no puede constituir una oferta de productos o servicios de buena fe en el marco de la Política); y Tumblr, Inc. c. ...
2015-05-05 - Case Details
Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition (4th ed. 2005) §31:10, p. 31-35 and cases cited therein. The remedies under the Policy are similarly injunctive rather than compensatory in nature, and the focus is on avoiding confusion in the future as to the source of goods or services. ...
2015-05-22 - Case Details
The websites associated with the disputed domain names and each refer to the corporate office of “YOUR'S RED BULL GLOBAL RESEARCH (P) LTD”. The webpage associated with the disputed domain name includes cross-links to Red Bull Financial, Red Bull iTech and Red Bull Pages. ...
2015-05-14 - Case Details
The disputed domain name consists of an obvious misspelling of Complainant’s WHATSAPP trademark (given the omission of the “h” and the replacement of the “pp” by a “b”, most likely as “p” is pronounced as “b” in Arabic). Prior panels deciding under the Policy have held that an obvious or common misspelling of a trademark is insufficient to distinguish a domain name from a complainant’s trademark and is intended to cause confusion amongst Internet users. ...
2016-08-29 - Case Details
IRG Coins and Ink Source, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0090; Strålfors AB v. P D S AB,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0112; InfoSpace.com, Inc. v. Tenenbaum Ofer,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0075.
...
2016-08-23 - Case Details
Complainant further argues that when a Disputed Domain Name incorporates an entire trademark with only the addition of a common symbol in the form of a hyphen, it is still confusingly similar to the trademark because the hyphen is non-distinctive. 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. ...
2017-06-06 - Case Details
To conclude otherwise would mean that a Respondent could rely on intentional infringement to demonstrate a legitimate interest, an interpretation which is obviously contrary to the intent of the Policy." Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi / Madonna.com,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
...
2016-11-17 - Case Details
VistaPrint Technologies Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2015-0886; Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847).
Furthermore, the Respondent is neither commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has it acquired trademark rights pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy. ...
2016-07-22 - Case Details