Use which intentionally trades on the fame of another
cannot constitute a ‘bona fide’ offering of goods or services: Madonna Ciccone,
p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com", WIPO
case D2000-0847 (October 12, 2000).
The Complainant has established this element of its case.
...
2002-11-19 - Case Details
It can be
noted that
the notion
of registration
has already
been stretched
to encompass
subsequent
acquisition
of a domain
name (see
Madonna
Ciccone,
p/k/a Madonna
v. Dan Parisi
and "Madonna.com",
WIPO
Case No.
D2000-0847).
Thus, the
fact that
Respondent's
acts in
respect
of the Domain
Name are
not technically
a registration
or an acquisition
should not
prevent
a finding
of "registration
in bad faith"
within the
meaning
of paragraph
4b) of the
Policy.
...
2003-08-27 - Case Details
reference here is made to annex Q between annex M and N as opposed to the second Annex Q after Annex P)
Although Respondent was served with these proceedings and had an opportunity to confirm these facts as well as the proposed evidence or put forward its own evidence to show its entitlement to the Domain Names and its legitimate interest in registering them Respondent has not availed itself of this opportunity.
...
2003-08-01 - Case Details
The Panel infers that the infringement was made with full knowledge and intent.
In Madonna
Ciccone,
p/k/a Madonna
v. Dan Parisi
and "Madonna.com"
(WIPO
Case No.
D2000-0847),
the panel
observed
that, "use
which intentionally
trades on
the fame
of another
can not
constitute
a ‘bona
fide’ offering
of goods
or services.
...
2003-08-21 - Case Details
TGI Paris, 3ème ch., 24 mars 2000, Pagotto c/ Gallopin, : Revue Communication, Commerce électronique, juin 2000, p. 20 s., obs.C.Caron).
A cet égard et en raison du principe de spécialité des marques, la preuve de la situation visée au paragraphe 4 (a) des Principes directeurs n’est pas rapportée.
...
2000-10-06 - Case Details
The Complainant stated in its Complaint that a copy thereof had been sent by registered letter to the Respondent on March 3, 2004, (Complaint, para. 17, p. 23).
The Panel is satisfied that the Center has complied with its obligations under
paragraph 2(a) of the Rules "to employ reasonably available means calculated
to achieve actual notice to Respondent" (see e.g. ...
2004-05-17 - Case Details
There, the panel relied on the legislative history behind the Policy to conclude that bad faith use, in addition to bad faith registration, was essential. Id. p. 7. "It is clear from the legislative history that ICANN intended that the complainant must establish not only bad faith registration, but also bad faith use." ...
2000-02-21 - Case Details
In the Wick case, the Registrant’s intent to traffic in the domain names was obvious based on his registration of the domain names under the name NameIsForSale.com (Id. at p. 3), the Registrant’s specific testimony which demonstrated a commercial intent, the Registrant’s failure to follow the Registrar’s rules, and the failure of the Registrant’s sites to constitute a valid parody. ...
2000-10-09 - Case Details
In similar circumstances, Panels have stated:
“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 and not obtained merely to circumvent
the application of the Policy.” (Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v.
Dan Parisi and Madonna.com, WIPO Case
No. D2000-0847.) That general principle has been accepted in other cases.
...
2004-10-01 - Case Details
Case No. D2000-0449 (August 27, 2000); Gordon Sumner
p/k/a Sting v. Michael Urvan WIPO Case No. D2000-0596, (July 20, 2000);
and, Document Technologie, Inc., v. ...
2001-03-22 - Case Details
In a second series of copies of e-mails annexed to the Complaint Complainant attaches an e-mail of August 1, 2001, to John P. Hart II (described elsewhere by Complainant as "current CEO of CTD") in confirming the agreement which Mr. ...
2001-11-12 - Case Details
Hertzberg cites Creo Products and G.A. Modafine
S.A. v. Sparco P/L, WIPO Case No. D2001-0370,
for the proposition that "new evidence" which might justify acceptance of a
refiled complaint is evidence which "could not have been obtained with reasonable
diligence for use at the trial" and "would probably have an important influence
on the result of the case." ...
2001-12-11 - Case Details
Complainant provides its tracking data that indicates its website has received between 140,000 and 210,000 page views per month since January 2000 (Reply to Respondent’s Response, Annex P) .
According to the registrar’s verification response to WIPO, dated August 24, 2000, "Burch & Hatfield Formal Shops" is the listed registrant of the domain name "TUXEDO4U.COM". ...
2000-10-25 - Case Details
o) The "use it or lose it" attitude of the criteria (i) and (ii) under the Policy is unjust and unrealistic.
(p) The Respondent owns some 100 domain names and develops a range of websites. Names include "RockhamptonCity.com". ...
2000-11-27 - Case Details
Furthermore, in support of this confusing similarity the Panel notes that in the Petit Larousse Illustré 1982 p. 1532, Monte-Carlo is defined as "quartier de la Principauté de Monaco où se trouve le casino". Further on page 1529 Monaco is defined as "Principauté du littoral de la méditerranée: grand centre touristique: casino".
...
2001-01-08 - Case Details
Furthermore, in support of this confusing similarity the Panel notes that in the Petit Larousse Illustré 1982 p. 1532, Monte-Carlo is defined as "quartier de la Principauté de Monaco où se trouve le casino". Further on page 1529 Monaco is defined as "Principauté du littoral de la méditerranée: grand centre touristique: casino".
...
2000-12-21 - Case Details
However, it was not suggested in that decision that these facts were exclusive or exhaustive.
(p) In the decision in Telstra Corporation Limited v. Barry Cheng Kwok Chu referred to above, the Panel observed:
"To date, the Respondent does not have a website, but the Panel holds that for the purpose of clause (iv) it is legitimate to consider hypothetically the effect of use in the manner foreshadowed by the Respondent. ...
2002-02-25 - Case Details
Web Society (WIPO case No. D2000-0135).
10. Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v.
Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com" (WIPO
case No. D2000-0847).
11. See for example Cimcities, LLC v.
...
2001-09-10 - Case Details
The Parties
The Complainant:
Instrumentarium Corporation, a Finnish public company of P. O. Box 100, FIN-00031. Instumentarium, represented by Ms Ritva Sotamaa, General Counsel, of the company’s address.
...
2001-02-01 - Case Details
Carl Seigler, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0984, Juventus F.C. S. p. A v. Sergio Braganca, WIPO
Case No. D2000-1466 and Microsoft Corporation v. StepWeb, WIPO
Case No. ...
2003-12-22 - Case Details