Second Orbit Communications, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0867; Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847; Nik Carter v. The Afternoon Fiasco,
WIPO Case No. ...
2009-07-03 - Case Details
“Business” is defined as the business of the Partnership, namely ARMA P LLP, the predecessor of the Complainant. The Complainant then points to clause 5 of the LLP Deed, which provides as follows:
“5. ...
2009-09-09 - Case Details
Complainant is the owner of various trademarks containing the “clerical medical” element, and registered for the territories of different jurisdictions, including:
- Community trademark No. 002265130 CLERICAL MEDICAL, filed on June 13, 2001, and registered on July 18, 2002 for services in International classes 35, 36 and 38;
- Swiss trademark No. P-451764 CLERICAL MEDICAL CM 1824 , filed on July 18, 1997 for services of class 36;
- Community trademark No. 007381131 1824 CLERICAL MEDICAL, filed on November 10, 2008 and registered on June 10, 2009 for services of classes 35, 36 and 38;
- Community trademark No. 007381171 1824 CLERICAL MEDICAL, filed on November 10, 2008 and registered on July 29, 2009 for services of class 35, 36 and 38;
- Community trademark No. 000457317 CM 1824 CLERICAL MEDICAL, filed on January 20, 1997 and registered on December 22, 1998 for services of class 36;
- Community trademark No. 005629721 CM 1824 CLERICAL MEDICAL, filed on January 19, 2007 and registered on February 4, 2008 for services of class 36;
- UK trademark No. 1539716 CLERICAL MEDICAL CLERICAL MEDICAL, filed on June 24, 1993 and registered on February 9, 1996 for services in International Class 36; and
- UK trademark No. 2444186 CM 1824 CLERICAL MEDICAL CM 1824 CLERICAL MEDICAL, filed on January 19, 2007 and registered on February 8, 2008 for services of class 36.
5. ...
2009-12-02 - Case Details
Taizhou Kaixuan Entertainment Co., Ltd., WIPO 案件编号D2005-0870; Panavision Inc And Panavision International, L P v. Gala Trade Inc, WIPO 案件编号D2000-1533; 及Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. DLR, WIPO 案件编号D2001-1231。
...
2008-10-23 - Case Details
Lorna Kang a/k/a Yong Li a/k/a Mahmoud Nadim a/k/a The Data in Bulkregister.com’s WHOIS Database is p a/k/a Amjad Kausar,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0635.)
Similarly, in a case previously involving this Complainant, the panel found that the then complaint could validly proceed against a number of differently named respondents, on the basis that it was most likely that the domain names were controlled by a single party. ...
2008-06-12 - Case Details
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 Complainant has established this element.
...
2008-06-02 - Case Details
See a summary of cases on this point in Guildline Instruments Limited v. Anthony Anderson,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0157, at p. 4.
The Policy is inflexible in this requirement, unlike, the Nominet system applicable in the United Kingdom and in New Zealand, where a complainant need prove that the domain name is an abusive or unfair registration, assessed on all the circumstances existing at the time of the complaint, and abusive current use suffices for a transfer finding.
...
2008-02-13 - Case Details
See Sound Unseen, Ltd.; Apple Bottoms, LLC; and Cornell
Haynes p/k/a “Nelly” v. Patrick Vanderhorst, WIPO
Case D2005-0636, in which the panel held that “…the Respondent’s
… opportunistic exploitation of inevitable Internet user confusion…..by
way of increased Internet traffic he would not have otherwise attained….…..constitutes…
bad faith.”
...
2006-08-21 - Case Details
See, e.g., Sound Unseen, Ltd.; Apple
Bottoms, LLC; and Cornell Haynes p/k/a “Nelly” v. Patrick Vanderhorst,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0636 (August 18, 2005);
True Blue Productions, Inc. v. ...
2006-05-05 - Case Details
While it is true that Respondent was using the disputed domain name to offer goods prior to receiving notice of the dispute, such use cannot in the Panel’s view be deemed bona fide within the meaning of the Policy.
As stated in Madonna Ciccone p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847 (October 16, 2000),
“use which intentionally trades on the fame of another cannot constitute
a ‘bona fide’ offering of goods or service. . . . ...
2006-12-27 - Case Details
Thus in using a domain name that is identical to Complainant’s registered mark on services that overlap, Respondent’s use is not a bona fide use and the Panel concludes that it was intended for commercial gain and to divert Internet users to Respondent’s commercial website. As explained in Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi, WIPO Case No. D2000-0847 (October 12, 2000), “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, an interpretation that is obviously contrary to the intent of the Policy.” ...
2007-07-20 - Case Details
D2006-0237 (April 18, 2006); Sound Unseen, Ltd.; Apple Bottoms, LLC; and Cornell Haynes p/k/a “Nelly” v. Patrick Vanderhorst,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0636 (August 18, 2005); True Blue Productions, Inc. v. ...
2007-06-08 - Case Details
Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainant must establish rights in a trademark and secondly prove that the domain names in dispute are confusingly similar to the trademarks in which Complainants have rights.
Complainant Madison Square Garden L. P. is the owner of the trademark MADISON SQUARE GARDEN registered in the United States as Registration No. 835,284 on September 12, 1967, for “operation of a sport entertainment, convention and exhibition arena…”. ...
2007-08-21 - Case Details
Moreover, even if
there were use prior to being notified of the dispute, if that use is infringing,
it cannot be deemed legitimate Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi
and “Madonna.com”, WIPO Case
No. D2000-0847. Here, the Respondent arguably is using
in connection with a domain name that suggested some type of an authorized or
official relationship between Respondent and Complainant when none existed.
...
2006-11-28 - Case Details
Particularly
where the Domain Names are all confusingly similar to the Complainants’
famous STARBUCKS mark, such advertising cannot be deemed use in connection with
a bona fide offering of goods or services by the Respondent. See, e.g.,
Madonna Ciccone p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847 (“use that
intentionally trades on the fame of another cannot constitute a bona fide
offering of goods or services”).
...
2007-04-02 - Case Details
D2001-1216). As stated by the panel in 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 service.
. . . to conclude otherwise would mean that a Respondent could rely on intentional
infringement to demonstrate a legitimate interest, an interpretation which is
obviously contrary to the intent of the Policy."
...
2007-01-25 - Case Details
BestCreative, Caso OMPI No.
D2004-0454 y Christopher Lloyd p/k/a Lloyd Banks v. Mike Morgan, Caso
OMPI No. D2004-0339.
Es difícil suponer mera coincidencia el hecho que la Titular hubiera registrado cuatro nombres de dominio que incluyen cuatro marcas registradas de la Promovente y que son conocidas mundialmente. ...
2006-03-15 - Case Details
Another case supporting this
is Strålfors AB v. P D S AB, WIPO Case No.
D2000-0112 at paragraph 5: (“Inaction is clearly within the concept
of “being used in bad faith” and it is possible for inactivity by
the Respondent to amount to the domain name being used in bad faith.”).
...
2004-06-14 - Case Details
“To conclude otherwise would mean that a Respondent
could rely on intentional infringement to demonstrate a legitimate interest,
an interpretation that it obviously contrary to the intent of the Policy”,
see Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847.
The Respondent’s contention that he registered the domain name as being his personal name is not quite persuasive since his whole surname, “Bancovic Espirito Santo”, does not correspond to the domain name at issue. ...
2005-01-03 - Case Details
The placing on a register of a distinctive name such as marksandspencer makes a representation to persons who consult the register that the registrant is connected or associated with the name registered and thus the owner of the goodwill in the name" [Aldous L. J. at p. 23]
6.11 There are a number of English cases dealing with passing-off the names of well-known individuals and personalities, which all - as may be expected - turn on the facts. ...
2000-05-23 - Case Details