In considering this delay of 15 years in challenging the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name, the Panel is of the same view as UDRP decisions mentioned in section 4.17 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 that “[p]anels have widely recognized that mere delay between the registration of a domain name and the filing of a complaint neither bars a complainant from filing such case, nor from potentially prevailing on the merits”. ...
2019-10-31 - Case Details
Moreover, the Pullman Adelaide’s own website does not assert that it is at or near the Adelaide Oval, but rather that it is “(p)ositioned in the heart of the Adelaide Central Business District”. There is, also, nothing on the Respondent’s website to indicate that the Pullman Adelaide has no association with the Complainant’s hotel nor that the Respondent’s hotel is more than one kilometer from the Adelaide Oval stadium. ...
2020-10-22 - Case Details
With respect to unsolicited filings, this Panel is of the view expressed in Gordon Sumner, p/k/a Sting v. Michael Urvan,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0596, that unsolicited submissions will 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.
...
2011-11-17 - Case Details
The Panel concurs with such inferences, the drawing of which precludes a finding that any offering of services by the Respondent on the Website was bona fide (see Madonna Ciccone p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com",
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847; and Viacom International, Inc., Paramount Pictures Corporation, and Blockbuster Inc. v. ...
2011-10-31 - Case Details
Changing the “e” in “Apple” to a “w”, and adding an extra “p”, are changes which would be barely noticeable to many Internet users, and those changes do nothing to dispel the confusion likely to be caused by combining with the Complainant’s well-known APPLE mark a common word (“music”) which is descriptive of one of the very commercial fields in which the Complainant is a global player. ...
2012-06-14 - Case Details
See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”), paragraph 4.7;3 Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847.
A. Admissibility of Supplemental Filings
Before turning to the merits, this Panel will address whether to consider Complainant’s Additional Submission and whether to allow Respondent to file its own supplemental submission. ...
2012-08-10 - Case Details
See Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition (4th ed. 2005) §31:10, p. 31-35, and cases cited therein. The remedies under the Policy are similarly injunctive rather than compensatory in nature, and the focus is on avoiding confusion in the future as to the source of goods or services. ...
2012-08-08 - Case Details
See WIPO panelists WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition ("WIPO Overview 2.0") and, among others, Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847
In the case at hand, the Complainants submitted evidence showing that the Respondent owned a registered trademark INVENTA in the United States, filed on October 10, 1996, for computer consulting and systems integration services in the information technologies field. ...
2012-11-07 - Case Details
The website parked on the disputed domain name and the said website features write-ups on the Complainant, its Group Companies, its Chairman (Mr. R. N. Tata) and it’s Deputy Chairman (Mr. Cyrus P. Mistry).
- It is further stated there could be no plausible explanation for the use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent since the Complainant’s trade/service mark TATA is exclusively used by the Complainant and companies promoted by it...
2013-01-31 - Case Details
Submission
At least one UDRP panel has found that Complainant possesses unusually strong rights in the CHICAGO TRIBUNE Mark, ordering the transfer to Complainant of a domain name () which, like the Domain Name consists essentially of the CHICAGO TRIBUNE Mark. (See The Chicago Tribune Company v. Jose P. Varkey
WIPO Case No. D2000-0133). The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the CHICAGO TRIBUNE Mark because the CHICAGO TRIBUNE Mark is fully incorporated within the Domain Name and comprises the dominant portion thereof. ...
2013-12-27 - Case Details
Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, “[a]ny of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate [Respondent’s] rights or legitimate interests to the Domain Names for purposes of [p]aragraph 4(a)(ii):
(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.”
...
2014-02-07 - Case Details
Complainant argues, additionally, that Respondent obtained and now uses the domain name only for click-through advertisements. Citing to Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com,”
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847, Complainant contends that this activity cannot serve as the basis of a legitimate interest or a bona fide offering of goods or services. ...
2014-09-17 - Case Details
In this Panel’s view, what is also important in this particular case, the linguistic element of the Complainant’s trademarks is a geographical name – a name of a city which cannot be registered solely as a trademark according to Article 131 para. 2 p. 2) of the Law on Industrial Property of June 30, 2000. Therefore, the word “Opoczno” itself is not protected by the Polish trademark law and the Complainant does not enjoy exclusivity to its use.
...
2014-04-11 - Case Details
D2012-0071 (considering, amongst the factors apt to demonstrate a prima facie case of absence of rights or legitimate interests, that the respondent was using the SWAROVSKI marks to create the impression of an association with complainant), Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com",
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847 where it has been held that "use which intentionally trades on the fame of another can not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services". ...
2014-06-02 - Case Details
Finally, the Panel notes that, on March 18, 2010, Respondent applied to register the trademark MODERN COWGIRLS for “[p]roviding a website to today's modern cowgirl with information on the latest country music, quotes, love articles, life articles and other inspirational content,” and that she claims first use of that trademark as of June 19, 2009.” ...
2010-06-02 - Case Details
This knowledge may be sufficient to infer bad faith under the Policy, even if Respondent may assert that he did not think he was technically infringing any rights (but did intend to take advantage thereof).
The panel in Stralfors AB v P D S AB,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0112, held that where the complainant had registered trademarks prior to the registration of the domain name, where there is “a high probability of individuality and distinctiveness”, and where “it is highly improbable that the Respondent has selected the name without first having noticed the Complainant’s numerous trademark registrations and its wide reputation” in the word used in the domain name, it may in itself be evidence that the domain name was registered in bad faith. ...
2011-02-23 - Case Details
The Panel subscribes to the reasoning of an often-cited, early UDRP decision, 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 or services. . . . ...
2011-02-17 - Case Details
The Respondent makes a claim of reverse domain name hijacking and submits the following arguments: Complainant’s trademark application was done just a few months before filing the present case, Complainant’s registration of domain names in several countries during the current year 2011 was under privacy protection, Complainant’s change of name of the registrant for the domain name from “Experienz Travels” to “Volunteering Travel Solutions P. Ltd., just a few days of filing the present Complainant. In the past few years Complainant is aggressively registering domain names and making proxy websites with fake P.O Box addresses in various countries like New Zealand and uses a privacy service and the Complainant’s trademark application being descriptive is likely to be rejected due to descriptive nature of the mark.
...
2011-07-14 - Case Details
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.
Here, contrary to the statements by Mr. ...
2010-11-04 - Case Details
Daniel Hadani, supra, where the “typos” – “f” for “g” and “i” or “p” for “o” on the keyboard were obvious, and the disputed domain names had no obvious alternative legitimate purposes. ...
2011-05-09 - Case Details