It was likely that the respondent in that case used it for anonymity (Gordon Summer, p/k/a Sting v. Michael Urvam,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0596).
In the present case, the evidence presented by the Respondent reveals that the Respondent has been using the name “Remy Martin” or “The Remy Martin” on the Internet. ...
2013-10-02 - Case Details
As already found by previous panels, a complainant’s inability to establish registration of disputed domain names in bad faith will generally be fatal to its case under the Policy – and the Panel makes such finding on the record in the present case, (e.g., Finlandia-Uistin Oy v. Juha P. Raatikainen,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0570; Telaxis Communications Corp. v. William E. Minkle,
WIPO Case No. ...
2011-11-22 - Case Details
The Complainant also has not licensed, permitted or authorized the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademark. In Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com",
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847 the panel stated that “use which intentionally trades on the fame of another can not constitute a ‘bona fide’ offering of goods or services”.
...
2011-11-11 - Case Details
D2002-0998 where the Panel held that “[a]lthough the ‘.org’ TLD may have been intended originally for non-trading organisations, its use is not restricted to such organizations and many Internet users are not aware of the original purpose of the different TLDs. The [p]anel has no doubt that the ‘.org’ suffix would not dispel confusion caused by the use of the Complainant’s well-known mark.” ...
2011-11-09 - Case Details
One matter which has given the Panel cause for pause, is that the Respondent apparently still held a registered DURACELL Community Trademark, in respect of goods in International Classes 32 and 33, when the Complaint was filed. However, in Madonna Ciccone P/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and Madonna.com,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847, the panel said:
“It would be a mistake to conclude that mere registration of a trademark creates a legitimate interest under the Policy… To establish cognizable rights, the overall circumstances should demonstrate that the registration was obtained in good faith for the purpose of making bona fide use of the mark in the jurisdiction where the mark is registered…”
Similarly, in Beca Inc v. ...
2011-07-21 - Case Details
According to the provisions of Article 6bis of the Paris Convention for [P]rotection of Industrial Property (‘PC'), confirmed and extended by Article 16.2 and Article 16.3 of the Agreement of Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (‘TRIPS Agreement'), the statute of a well-known trademark provides the owner of such a trademark the right to prevent any use of the well-known trademark or confusingly similar denomination in connection with any products or services (i.e. regardless of the list of the products and services for which the trademark is registered). ...
2009-12-18 - Case Details
Previous panels have held that unsolicited submissions should be considered only in exceptional circumstances, and only when the party filing the unsolicited submission explains the exceptional circumstances and why the material could not have been submitted with the Complaint or Response. See Gordon Sumner, p/k/a Sting v. Michael Urvan,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0596; see also The E.W. Scripps Company v. Sinologic Industries,
WIPO Case No. ...
2009-12-15 - Case Details
Here, the Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed
Domain Names indicate 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”).
...
2025-04-10 - Case Details
Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, Complainant is required to establish a prima facie case that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the contested domain name. See TotalFinaElf E&P USA, Inc. v. Marylin Farnes, NAF Claim No. 117028 (“In order to bring a claim under the Policy, Complainant must first establish a prima facie case. ...
2012-02-08 - Case Details
On that basis, the Complainant says that;
- the first disputed domain name () is identical to its trade mark, save that the “u” has been omitted;
- the second disputed domain name () is identical, save that the “u” and “p” have been transposed;
- the third disputed domain name () is identical, save that an addition “u” has been inserted;
- the fourth disputed domain name () is identical, save that an additional “r” has been inserted.
...
2014-11-21 - Case Details
Moreover, Respondent’s use of one of the Domain Names to direct visitors to a website that imitates Complainant’s own site, with links that direct visitors to competitive sites, evidences that Respondent registered the Domain Names to deceptively attract and then misdirect Internet users for Respondent’s 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); and ITT Industries, Inc. v Katherine Kliszcz,
WIPO Case No. ...
2012-12-10 - Case Details
“The issue is not whether confusion is likely in the trademark sense (that is, confusion as to source based on the domain name and its use in connection with a website), but rather, whether the domain name, standing alone, is sufficiently similar to the trademark to justify moving on to other elements of a claim for cybersquatting.” F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. P Martin,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0323. “Each case must be judged on its own facts, and the assessment will always depend on the specific mark and the specific domain name.” ...
2012-07-31 - Case Details
The Panel also agrees that there is no bona fide offering by Respondents, since there is no indication that Respondents have any relationship to Complainant or are offering products or services related to Complainant or its GARANTI-derivative marks. See e.g., Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com,"
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847 ("use which intentionally trades on the fame of another cannot constitute a "bona fide" offering of goods and services…to conclude otherwise would mean that a Respondent could rely on intentional infringement to demonstrate a legitimate interest…").
...
2010-12-21 - Case Details
Alisia Uzun,
WIPO Case No. D2008-1138 citing Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847.
There is no bona fide offering of goods or services by Respondent. ...
2010-10-08 - Case Details
Factual Background
Complainant owns trademark registrations for the mark INTERHOME, including Swiss trademark registration number P-470968 for services in class 42 with a priority date of January 12, 2000 and International Trademark Registration number 740788 for services in class 42, which is protected for Denmark.
...
2010-10-28 - Case Details
Factual Background
Complainants are North Atlantic Operating Company, Inc., and its affiliated company, National Tobacco Company, L. P.1 (referred to herein as Complainant, unless otherwise expressly indicated). North Atlantic Operating Co. ...
2013-07-16 - 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. ...
2010-04-06 - Case Details
Since Respondent’s website at the disputed domain name contains links to competitors of Complainants in addition to the link to the website of Complainant Haliç Televizyon Ve Radyo Yayinciliği A.Ş., the Panel agrees. See also Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com",
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847 ("use which intentionally trades on the fame of another can not constitute a ‘bona fide’ offering of goods or services…to conclude otherwise would mean that a Respondent could rely on intentional infringement to demonstrate a legitimate interest…").
...
2010-09-08 - Case Details
Complainant contends that the test for confusing similarity under the Policy is confined to a comparison of the disputed domain name and the trademark alone, independent of the products or services for which the disputed domain name is used or other marketing and use factors. See, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. P Martin,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0323.
Complainant submits that it is well established that the specific top level of a domain name such as “.com”, “.org” or “.net” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar. ...
2013-09-03 - Case Details
Since the Respondent did not provide any argument or evidence in this case, its use of the disputed domain name, which misleadingly trades on the goodwill of the Complainant, cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services (see, Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847).
The second element of the Policy has been fulfilled.
...
2016-10-20 - Case Details