Internetco Corp. Case
No. D2000-0581
- Gordon Sumner, p/k/a Sting v Michael Urvan Case
No. D2000-0596
- Daniel C. Marino, Jr. v. Video Images Productions, et al. ...
2001-07-31 - Case Details
Mendes, 190 F.2d 415, 418 (1st
Cir. 1951))
The Washington Courts have also adopted this line of reasoning, holding that
the requirement of prior use in a mark is met when that name is actually used
in such a way as to become associated in the public’s mind as the name of the
business. Fish v. Koldkist Beverage Ice, 802 P.2d 837, 838, 60 Wash.App.
122, 123 (1991) (prior rights arise when a name "is actually used in such a
way as to be come associated in the public mind as the name of the business").
...
2001-11-06 - Case Details
Given the separate geographic areas and different spheres of business between the Complainant and the Respondent, the panel finds that it is credible that as the Respondent alleges, it had no actual knowledge of the existence of the Complainant and the fact that it was trading under a similar name at the time it registered the domain name. As found in Gordon Sumner, p/k/a Sting v Michael Urvan, WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, Case No D2000-0596, paragraph 6.10, the fact that negotiations between the parties for the sale of the domain name have occurred does not necessarily prove that the original registration was made primarily for the purpose of selling to the Complainant. ...
2001-04-12 - Case Details
The Parties
The Complainant is Ingram Micro Inc. of 1600 East Saint Andrew Place, P O Box 25125 Santa Ana, California 92799-5125, USA and it is represented in this complaint by David A Segal Esq. of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP of 4 Park Place Plaza, Suite 1400, Irvine, California 92606, USA.
...
2001-03-15 - Case Details
International Electronic
Communications, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0270
and Gordon Sumner, p/k/a Sting v. Michael Urvan, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0596).
This Panel does not consider that there are any exceptional circumstances in this case that would warrant the Panel to request the Complainant to file Further Submissions to the Respondent’s Response. ...
2002-10-24 - Case Details
The Parties
The Complainants are ISL Worldwide [ISL] of Grafenauweg 2, P O Box 4433, CH-6304
Zug, Switzerland and The Federation Internationale de Football Association [FIFA]
of Hitziweg 11, P O Box 85, 8030 Zurich, Switzerland
The Respondent is Western States Ticket Service of 143 W McDowell Road, Phoenix,
AZ 85003, United States of America
2. ...
2001-04-04 - Case Details
The Panel notes that on September 24, 2024, that is just a few days after the registration of both disputed
domain names (i.e., September 16, 2024), the Complainant sent an email to the Respondent, using the
contact details on the website at the disputed domain name , in order to enquire about the
activity field of the relevant website: the Panel finds hard to consider as a mere coincidence the fact that on
the same day, namely September 24, 2024, the Respondent filed the application for the registration of the
trademark GAWKER in United Kingdom, and after three days, namely on September 27, 2024, the
Respondent incorporated the company Gawker Limited in United Kingdom. See e.g., in this respect
Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”, WIPO Case No. D2000-0847.
In any case, the disputed domain names and the Respondent’s company name have been registered many
years after the Complainant’s distinctive trademark has become famous in the media field. ...
2025-01-31 - Case Details
As to the use of the disputed domain name to send misleading
email communications from e-mail address based on the said disputed domain name, such use is also in
bad faith. See section 3.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0: “[p]anels have held that the use of a domain name for
purposes other than to host a website may constitute bad faith. ...
2024-12-26 - Case Details
Just
mere use of a domain name prior to the notice of dispute is insuf f icient for claiming rights or legitimate
interests where circumstances indicate that the mark is used in the domain name to gain unfair benef it f rom
a complainant’s trademark. See Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847.
Some factors to consider whether the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is fair and bona f ide
are: 1. ...
2025-09-11 - Case Details
John Adem, WIPO Case No. D2000-1480; Gordon Sumner, p/k/a
Sting v. Michael Urvan, WIPO Case No. D2000-0596; The E.W. Scripps Company v. Sinologic Industries,
WIPO Case No. ...
2025-09-01 - Case Details
In considering this delay of 16 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 of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third
Edition (“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”. ...
2022-12-20 - Case Details
Notably this case differs in that material respect from cases such as Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com",
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847, where a trademark (or corporate) registration was found to be a pretext for cybersquatting.
...
2021-07-15 - Case Details
Kaavia James is the daughter of Gabrielle Monique Union-Wade p/k/a Gabrielle Union and former National Basketball Association player Dwyane Tyrone Wade Jr. In addition to the notoriety of Kaavia James’ parents, Kaavia James has garnered notoriety in her own right, as reflected by the over 1.7 million followers on her Instagram page.
...
2021-09-13 - Case Details
Texas International Property Associates,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1415; Madonna Ciccone p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847; and Speakasia Online Pte. Ltd. v. ...
2021-10-01 - Case Details
In considering this delay of seven years in challenging the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name, the Panel is of the same view as those previous UDRP decisions mentioned in section 4.17 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“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”. ...
2021-09-29 - Case Details
Banks had not responded to any communications in this dispute since January 26, 2021 (Ex. P. to the Amended Complaint).
In our prior telephone conversations with Complainants’ counsel, Mr. ...
2021-05-04 - Case Details
The Panel notes the Complainant’s reason for the supplemental filing: “[t]he Response is based party on the documents dated after the filing of the Complaint (see, for example, p.10 of the Response, Annex 9 and 10 with the correspondence from 23.12.2020 to 27.04.21). There are also allegations in reverse domain name hijacking.” ...
2021-06-08 - Case Details
Procedural Issues: Admissibility of Late Response and Parties’ Supplemental Filings
Further to section 4.6 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third
Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), “[p]aragraph 10 of the UDRP Rules vests the panel with the authority to
determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of the evidence, and also to conduct the
proceedings with due expedition”. ...
2024-02-22 - Case Details
D2001-0823 (“Prior decisions have rejected complaints where the dispute is primarily
contractual and therefore outside the scope of the [P]olicy.”) (See also Pelikan Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH &
Co. KG. v. Pelikan Iran, WIPO Case No. DIR2010-0005; Summit Industries, Inc. v. ...
2023-11-16 - Case Details