On the other hand, 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.
Despite the Complainant’s assertions, there is no evidence that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s USHUAIA mark when he registered the disputed domain name, in response to his client’s request. ...
2007-04-04 - Case Details
Les parties
Le Requérant est Carrefour, Levallois Perret, France, représenté par J.-P. Karsenty & Associés, France.
Le Défendeur est Monsieur Olivier Duchange, Pontault-Combault, France.
2. ...
2007-06-15 - Case Details
There are numerous cases where a demand for a significant amount of money has
contributed strongly to the Panel’s finding of bad faith. These include
the following: Tracy Marrow p/k/a “ICE-T” v. iceT.com a/k/a Sverrir
Geirmundsson WIPO Case No. D2000-1234;
Television Française 1 v. ...
2004-09-01 - Case Details
Intellectual
Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade marks and Allied Rights. Fourth Edition, Sweet
and Maxwell, 1999, p. 619-651....
2005-08-22 - Case Details
Yeteck Communication, Inc., WIPO Case
No. D2001-0055, p. 5 (finding the domain name “aolcasino” to
be confusingly similar to the AOL mark). See also Viacom International, Inc.
...
2005-10-18 - Case Details
Peikang,
WIPO Case No D2000-0055.
5.7 A trade mark search was carried out in the USPTO database (TESS) for the word “Baccarat”. The results of the search form Annex P to the Complaint. This showed 24 live trademarks including the great majority of the Complainant’s trademarks including its BACCARAT CRISTAL trademark but, most importantly, none of the 24 trademarks were registered in the name of the Respondent. ...
2005-03-15 - Case Details
Complainant is really asking the Panel to grant it a monopoly over the letters P-L-A-Y-B-O and U.
(ii) Complainant has not met the burden of demonstrating bad faith and Respondent has not acted with bad faith. ...
2002-03-21 - Case Details
Copies of these decisions are attached here
to at Annex P.
45. Based on the foregoing, Respondent has registered and used the domain name in bad faith."
...
2001-12-18 - Case Details
IRG Coins and Ink
Source, Inc. WIPO
Case No.D2000-0090; Stralfors AB v. P D S AB, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0112; InfoSpace.com, Inc. v. Ofer, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0075.
6.13There are other
facts that provide sufficient evidence of bad faith in this case. ...
2002-01-08 - Case Details
The web page is merely a homepage which indicates that “Ali, Ferhat, Kurtulus, Levent & Mert welcome you to AFKLM “the bar for your sweetest moments with the cutest bois…” Mail us!!!!” (Annex P to the Complaint). Furthermore, such a web page is likely to negatively affect the business reputation of both the Complainant and its partner KLM when customers using the ‘afklm’ abbreviation while searching on the Internet come to such a page.
...
2004-12-09 - Case Details
In
three of those proceedings, the first case had been decided "without prejudice"
by the original Panels or the Panel implicitly invited the complaining party
to re-file the Complaint. See G.A. Modefine S.A. v. Sparco P/L, WIPO
Case No. D2001-0370 (May 6, 2001) (dismissed "without prejudice");
Parker Hannifin Corp. v. ...
2002-07-19 - Case Details
The Complainant asserts that, on December 21, 2000, it received another e-mail message from the Respondent offering to "negotiate" the return of the domain name but only for an amount far in excess of his initial registration fee (a copy of message attached as Annex P). Particularly, in the message, the Respondent stated, inter alia:
We had previously given you the negotiation starting price for the domain name of . ...
2001-05-10 - Case Details
International Electronic Communications, Inc (WIPO
Case D2000-0270) in relation to the filing of supplementary submissions, and
with the approach adopted and applied by the single-member Administrative Panel
in Gordon Sumner, p/k/a Sting v Michael Urvan (WIPO Case D2000-0596).
Supplementary submissions can only be filed at the request of the Administrative
Panel. ...
2000-09-28 - Case Details
Complainant
registered the domain name "lip-service.com" on May 20, 1998. Response,
paragraph 5.6, Exhibit B, p.3. On August 2, 1999, counsel for Complainant sent
a cease and desist letter to Respondent, informing him of Complainant’s trademark
rights and demanding the transfer of the Domain Name from the Respondent to
the Complainant. ...
2000-10-25 - Case Details
The Parties
The Complainant is now known as Cruzeiro Licenciamentos Ltda, a company organised under the laws of Brazil, with its address at Cidade de Barueri, Estado de São Paulo, Alameda Rio Negro 1.084, Sala 78, Brazil. The Complainant is represented by Mr. Marc P. Misthal and Ms. Amy B. Goldsmith of Gottlieb, Rackman & Reisman, P.C., Attorneys of New York.
The Respondent is David Sallen of 7 Fiske Terrace, Brookline, MA 02446, USA, phone (617) 731 6939; email jdsallen@IX.NETCOM.COM. ...
2000-09-06 - Case Details
Dada la evidente importancia de la fecha de registro del dominio "elrincondelvago", el Panel, al amparo de una interpretación amplia de las facultades que le atribuyen los apartados 10 y 12 del Reglamento y de conformidad con la sugerencia en tal sentido del Case Manager (doc. Nº 10, p. 1ª del demandado), se dirigió a NSI para solicitar tal información. Por comunicación electrónica de 14 de septiembre de 2000, NSI respondió:
que consideraba que no era función del Panelista coadyuvar en la indagación de los hechos más allá de lo que se desprende de los escritos y pruebas aportados por las partes, que tal información no puede ofrecerla sin un procedimiento judicial de "subpoena", y que habiendo estudiado el caso no entendía el alcance y la importancia de la petición
El demandado podrá reiterar la petición con las condiciones exigidas por NSI si acude a la vía judicial, haciendo valer asimismo el contrato de servicios que le liga con esta empresa y que, parece, debiera obligarla a proporcionar a sus clientes la información que necesitan para la mejor defensa de sus derechos e intereses. ...
2000-09-22 - Case Details
IRG Coins and Ink Source, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0090; Stralfors AB v. P D S AB, WIPO Case No. D2000-0112; InfoSpace.com, Inc. v. Ofer, WIPO Case No. D2000-0075.
To quote a prior Panel decision, "[B]ecause Respondent is contributing no value-added to the Internet -- it is merely attempting to exploit a general rule of registration -- the broad community of Internet users will be better served by transferring the domain name to a party with a legitimate use for it." ...
2001-01-26 - Case Details
- Que es inaplicable el artículo 5.1 a) de la Ley de Marcas, por su literalidad, además de por lo establecido en la Jurisprudencia española y en la Doctrina, careciendo además el Ayuntamiento de Madrid, o sus empresas municipales, de legitimación exclusiva sobre la palabra MADRID, pues igual podrían reclamarla otros entes públicos, como la Comunidad de Madrid, p. ej.
- Que "ESMADRID" no era la única opción existente, y sosteniéndose que no ha quedado probado que los tres finalistas llegaran a la conclusión de que "ESMADRID" era una opción, poniendo en duda la validez de la documentación aportada por la demandante, insinuando que la certificación emitida por la entidad LATA LATINA es de conveniencia, y
- Que tiene interés en conservar ese dominio, ya que... ...
2003-02-19 - Case Details
The website features,
inter alia, promotion of staffing services for call center, medical and
technical staffing areas. (Id., para. 12.O-P & Annex 10, and Panel
visit of July 11, 2001)
Complainant (through counsel) initially contacted Respondent by letter of February
23, 2001, both in respect to its use of the name "BenchMark Jobs"
for its business operations, and in respect to the disputed domain name (Complaint,
para. 12.I & Annex 7). ...
2001-07-19 - Case Details
This of itself however does not make the domain names fair use, since there is no connection between the domain names and the subject matter of the web sites they resolve to; see The Chicago Tribune Company v. Jose P. Varkey, WIPO Case No. D2000-0133; Monty and Pat Roberts, Inc. v. J. Bartell, WIPO Case No. D2000-0300. ...
2001-02-28 - Case Details