These activities of the Respondent are evidence of the Respondent’s intent to trade upon the reputation of the Complainant’s ACCUTANE Trademark. See Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847. Consequently there is no bona fide offering of goods or services by the Respondent. ...
2008-07-17 - Case Details
Other panels have held that use of a domain name that trades on the fame of
another’s trademark cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods
or services under Paragraph 4 (c) (i) of the Policy (see inter alia Madonna
Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com,” WIPO
Case No. D2000-0847, where the panel stated that the domain name had been
“selected and used by Respondent with the intent to attract for commercial
gain Internet users to Respondent’s web site by trading on the fame of
Complainant’s mark. ...
2007-04-30 - Case Details
Complainant contends, without elaboration on the merits or citation to any authority, that “[t]he Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to both the existing ‘Trailblazer Learning’ trademark owned by Trailblazer Learning, Inc. and the pending trademark ‘Trailblazer’, which is why it is seeking possession of the domain name.”
Complainant contends that “[p]rior to notice made by Complainant, Respondent had not used the domain name or shown preparations to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering for goods or services,” that “Respondent is passively holding the domain name despite being inherently aware that it is a well-known trademark (the Chevrolet Trailblazer is one such obvious trademark),” that “Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, has not filed a renewed Fictitious Business Name in its county of residence (Kern, California) and has not acquired any trademark or service marks or filed a corporate or LLC/LP registration,” and that Respondent “does not appear to have any common law trademark from use of Trailblazer in any media or advertising, nor does it appear that it is generating any revenue.”
...
2006-09-06 - Case Details
This conduct constitutes evidence of bad faith use, since the Respondent is
trying to profit from the Complainant’s trademarks reputation, by increasing
the traffic on its website through the mere reproduction of somebody else’s
trademark, this constitutes obvious bad faith use of the domain name in dispute
(Sound Unseen, Ltd.; Apple Bottoms, LLC; and Cornell Haynes p/k/a “Nelly”
v. Patrick Vanderhors, WIPO Case No. D2005-0636).
Furthermore it has been previously established that bad faith may be present
where a domain name “is so obviously connected with such a well-known
product that its very use by someone with no connection with the product suggests
opportunistic bad faith” (Sanofi-aventis v. ...
2006-09-27 - Case Details
Gilliéron, Les divers régimes de protection des signes distinctifs et leurs rapports avec le droit des marques, Staempfli Editions SA, Berne 2000, p. 110). En droit suisse, le nom de commerce qui n’est pas inscrit au Registre du commerce est protégé par le biais du droit au nom ou du droit de la concurrence déloyale, si les conditions posées par ces droits sont réunies (ATF 114 II 106; ATF 4C.199/2001, sic! ...
2006-08-17 - Case Details
Design Shack (respondent's owner Shackleton produced evidence of being known as “Shack” throughout his life and ran business under that name); Gordon Sumner, p/k/a Sting v Michael Urvan,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0596 (use of “sting” for Internet gaming for eight years, shown in exhibits and affidavits, insufficient evidence to support conclusion that respondent was commonly known by that nickname).
...
2009-02-16 - Case Details
Nuclear Marshmallows,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 (“[P]aragraph 4(b) expressly recognises that other circumstances can be evidence that a domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith”) (emphasis in the original).
...
2009-02-11 - Case Details
The right to disseminate criticism on the Internet cannot trump the public’s right not to be deceived by a confusingly similar domain name.” (§ 31.148.50, p. 31-251)
Further:
“[U]se of the trademark of a company in the domain of a site that is devoted to criticizing or complaining about that company will constitute infringement if there is some commercial aspect...
2007-07-05 - Case Details
Lorna Kang a/k/a Yonng Li a/k/a Mahmoud Nadim a/k/a The Data in Bulkregister.com’s WHOIS Database is p a/k/a Amjad Kausar,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0635 (September 7, 2005); Neuberger Berman Inc. v. Alfred Jacobsen,
WIPO Case No. ...
2007-05-24 - Case Details
It is well-established that “use which intentionally
trades on the fame of another can not constitute a “bona fide” offering
of goods or services.” Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi
and “Madonna.com,” WIPO Case
No. D2000-0847 (October 12, 2000). Furthermore,
the mere “parking” of a domain name does not constitute a bona
fide offering of goods or services under Paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy.
...
2007-05-11 - 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. ...
2013-02-22 - Case Details
In the end, however, consistent with decisions of the learned panelists in Greyson International above, Finlandia-Uistin Oy v. Juha P. Raatikainen,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0570 and SPECS Surface Nano Analysis GmbH v. Rickmer Kose / Domain Name Administrator, PrivacyProtect.org,
WIPO Case No. ...
2011-03-10 - Case Details
In fact, the Panel sees no plausible explanation for Respondent’s adoption and use of the terms “allstateinsurance” and “encompassinsurnace” in the disputed domain names and, accordingly, concludes that the disputed domain names were selected and used by Respondent to take advantage of the notoriety associated with the “All State” name and the goodwill attached to the “Encompass” name, 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 names, 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 names. ...
2011-04-20 - Case Details
On the issue of registration, the Complainant contends as follows: “The term SKYPE is neither generic nor a dictionary term but on the contrary it is a made up and invented term consisting of the highly unlikely combination of the letters S-K-Y-P-E which is exclusively associated with the Complainant and its software” and that this is indicative of bad faith registration by the Respondent. ...
2011-06-09 - Case Details
Merely establishing a business name and registering a domain name to trade off another’s reputation, especially where the Respondent is offering goods and services in competition to the Complainant, does not suffice to establish a right or legitimate interest safe harbor for the purpose of the Policy. Madonna Ciccone p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com",
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847 is instructive on this issue. ...
2011-04-14 - Case Details
In addition, the Panel sees no plausible explanation for Respondent’s adoption and use of the names “allstatemahem”, “allstatemayheminsurance”, “wwwallstateagent”, “whyallstateagent”, “allstateroadservice” and “allstatema” in the disputed domain names and, accordingly, concludes that the disputed domain names were selected and used by Respondent to take advantage of the notoriety enjoyed by the ALLSTATE trademark and the association with other trademarks used by Complainant, 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 names, 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 names. ...
2011-04-08 - Case Details
Segundo o art. 1o da Resolução CGI.br/RES/2008/008/P do Comitê Gestor da Internet no Brasil, via de regra, um nome de domínio disponível para registro é concedido ao primeiro requerente que satisfaz, quando do requerimento, as exigências para o registro do mesmo. ...
2011-05-05 - Case Details
c) Respondent has not used the Disputed Domain Name for a bona fide offering of goods or services
Respondent's use and incorporation of Complainant's famous trademark VALIUM in the Disputed Domain Name is evidence of Respondent's intent to trade upon the reputation of Complainant's VALIUM trademark. In Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847 the Panel found that “[u]se which intentionally trades on the fame of another cannot constitute a ‘bona fide' offering of goods or services”.
...
2008-10-09 - Case Details
Moreover, Respondents' use of the Domain Name to direct visitors to third-party commercial automotive-related websites, for which Respondents presumably receive compensation, evidences that Respondents registered the Domain Name to deceptively attract and then misdirect Internet users for Respondents' own commercial gain, which constitutes bad faith. See, Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847 (registration for the purpose of profiting off of another's trademark constitutes bad faith); ITT Industries, Inc. v Katherine Kliszcz,
WIPO Case No. ...
2009-11-30 - Case Details
Keyword Marketing, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2006-1137; V. de C. v. P. B.,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1863 (considering confusing similarity between “VICTOIRE DE CASTELLANE” trademark and , citing Carrefour SA contre Laretoucherie,
WIPO Case No. ...
2009-11-19 - Case Details