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 No. D2000-0847. The Respondent’s prior knowledge of the Complainants’
famous mark and the content of the Respondent’s website lead the Panel to conclude
that the Respondent is seeking intentionally to trade on the fame of the Complainants’
mark.
...
2004-02-06 - Case Details
Complainant has asserted that "Supreme Global Service (SGS)" is a non existing entity, dictinct from Inspectorate. Complaint-Exh. "P"-CompuMark report. Complaint II A (9).
The Panel considers that Respondent´s assertions concerning Supreme Global Service lack credibility, on the following grounds:
First, clauses 1 to 4 clearly consist of business in the field of herbal products, and do not relate at all to networking business. ...Further, the Respondent in this proceeding is Inspectorate, and not "Supreme Global Service". Pursuant to Rule 1 ("Definitions") "(p)arty means a Complainant or a Respondent". The Panel´s decision can only affect Parties. It was Inspectorate that registered the domain names and no other entity. ...
2000-03-20 - Case Details
However, the Panel follows the guidance provided by WIPO Overview 3.0,
section 4.15, which states that “[p]anels have broadly noted that insofar as the UDRP system is designed to
operate in a global context, while rooted in general trademark law principles, in its own terms UDRP
jurisprudence generally would not require resort to particular national laws”. ...
2024-01-16 - Case Details
First, based on the circumstances here, the Panel concludes that the Respondent’s registration and use of
the Disputed Domain Name had been done for the specific purpose of trading on the name and reputation of
the Complainant and its CVS Mark. 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”).
...
2024-12-13 - Case Details
Proactiva, WIPO
Case No. D2012-0182; Mercado Libre Inc v. P Mercado Pago, Pedro Yukio Sato, WIPO Case No.
D2022-0624; WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.
The Panel therefore finds the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the Mark for the purposes of
satisfying paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2025-09-15 - Case Details
JPM (word), Swiss trademark with registration number P-464538, registered on September 1, 1999.
JPM (word), United Kingdom trademark with registration number UK00901103209, registered on
April 13, 2000.
...
2025-08-29 - Case Details
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution P...
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 28, 2025. ...
2025-06-06 - Case Details
Complainant is the registered owner of various national Australian trademarks relating to its company name
and brand PEET, inter alia, but not limited, to the following:
- word/design trademark PEET P, Australian Government / IPA Australia (“IP Australia”),
registration No.: 652300, registration date: February 3, 1995, status: active;
- word trademark PEET, IP Australia, registration No.: 1063747,
registration date: July 7, 2005, status: active.
...
2025-07-22 - Case Details
The Complainant is the owner of United States trademark registration number 3351550 for the word mark
FUTURE EDUCATORS ASSOCIATION, registered on December 11, 2007 in International Class 41 for
“[p]roviding educational mentoring services and programs for middle school and high school students
interested in the teaching profession.” ...
2026-02-19 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that as a result of this high-profile use the Complainant’s marks, all of which pre-date the registration of the disputed domain name on August 7, 2022 have acquired a significant goodwill and reputation. The Complainant has p...
In the absence of a Response the Panel finds the above evidence as adduced by the Complainant to be true.
5. ...
2022-11-15 - Case Details
The Complainant is a member of Standard & Poor’s (S&P) 500 Index, and its
common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) under the symbol EFX.
...
2022-08-30 - Case Details
– the “h” in the word “shopping” is repeated;
e. – the second “p” in the word “shopping” is replaced with the adjacent letter
“o”;
f. – the “g” in the word “shopping” is replaced with the adjacent letter, “h”;
and
g. ...
2022-12-08 - Case Details
Softech Ltd., DNS Administrator (gold),
WIPO Case No. D2007-1699; and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. P Martin,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0323).
The addition of the gTLD “.com” to the disputed domain names constitutes a technical requirement of the Domain Name System (“DNS”), and therefore has no legal significance in the present case (see CARACOLITO S SAS v. ...
2021-03-29 - Case Details
Respondent’s representative states in his Declaration that “[p]rior to registering the Domain Name, I conducted a clearance search of the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s online database to identify any trademark registrations covering or pending registration applications claiming established rights in the Qentura mark. ...
2021-08-26 - Case Details
Ritzio Purchase Limited против Whoisguard Protected, Whoisguard, Inc. / Z-P. M,. Дело ВОИС № D2015-0295.
Б. Ответчики
Ответчики не предоставили Ответа на Жалобу и возражений против доводов Заявителя. ...
2017-01-13 - Case Details
Further to WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP
Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.10, “[p]anel assessment of identity or confusing
similarity involves comparing the (alpha-numeric) domain name and the textual components of the relevant
mark. ...
2023-02-20 - Case Details
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution P...
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 8, 2023. ...
2023-07-18 - Case Details
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution P...
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 30, 2023. ...
2023-07-18 - Case Details
As recorded
in section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, “[p]anels have consistently found that the mere registration of a
domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos or
incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated
entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith”. ...
2023-08-25 - Case Details
An online
search of the Philippine companies registry database does not reveal the existence of a company of that
name either.1 In any case, the registration of that company name would not overcome the inference from
1 The Panel notes its general powers articulated inter alia in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the Rules and has searched the publicly available
database of Companies House Philippines at “https://companieshouse.ph” in order to evaluate the Respondent’s assertion regarding
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0134.html
page 6
the circumstances of this case that it was chosen because of its degree of similarity to the Complainant’s
mark in order to trade on the reputation of that mark. See also in this regard Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a
Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”, WIPO Case No. D2000-0847. The Respondent also alleges
that his website is only an introduction to the company’s business and does not provide any services for
users. ...
2023-08-21 - Case Details