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 1, 2023. ...
2023-07-07 - Case Details
While both parties acknowledge that Respondent was once a
distributor of Complainant’s products in 2005, “[p]anels tend to assess claimed respondent rights or
legitimate interests in the present, i.e., with a view to the circumstances prevailing at the time of the filing of
the complaint.” ...
2024-06-04 - Case Details
The sole difference between the address indicated for
and the one mentioned for and
is the presence of a letter “P” after the province of Guangdong in the postal
address indicated for ;
iv. based on the information provided by the concerned Registrars to the Center after the filing of the
Complaint, all the disputed domain names have been registered with the indication of the same phone
number;
v. the close similarity amongst the disputed domain names, incorporating the trademark VALENTINO in
its entirety with the addition of the terms referred to online sale (“online”, “store” and “outlet”), as better
detailed infra. ...
2024-09-02 - Case Details
The Respondent referred to a judgment of November 5, 2014 of the United States District Court of Arizona between Yoyo.Email, LLC as plaintiff and Playinnovation, LTD. as defendant, which stated that “[p]laintiff’s legitimate purpose seeking to certify the sending and receipt of emails, as described in the Complaint, does not evidence a bad-faith intent to profit from the ‘registration, use or trafficking’ of a domain name.” ...
2015-05-13 - Case Details
As the panel concluded in an early and much-cited 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. . . . ...
2015-05-13 - Case Details
The Respondent asserts that his business model has been the subject of a declaratory judgment in the United States that stated that “[p]laintiff’s legitimate purpose seeking to certify the sending and receipt of emails, as described in the [court] Complaint, does not evidence a bad-faith intent to profit from the ‘registration, use or trafficking’ of a domain name.”
...
2015-01-16 - Case Details
D2000-0859; Monty and Pat Roberts, Inc. v. J. Bartell,
Caso OMPI No. D2000-0300; y J. P. Morgan & Co., Incorporated and Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York v. Resource Marketing,
Caso OMPI No. ...
2016-08-24 - Case Details
The fact that the Respondent filed a trademark application for A HABER in Germany after receiving notice of the dispute by the Complainant is not sufficient, in the Panel’s view, to establish trademark rights in the disputed domain name, as the circumstances of the case suggest that this trademark was filed to circumvent the application of the Policy. See Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847; Chemical Works of Gedeon Richter Plc v. ...
2017-01-25 - Case Details
The Parties
The Complainant is Ebel International Limited of Hamilton, Bermuda, Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by Pacón - Schiantarelli (P&S), Germany.
The Respondent is Alan Brashear of Belle Plaine, Kansas, United States of America, represented by Estudio Jurídico “Abril” Abogados Asociados, Peru.
2. ...
2017-04-11 - Case Details
See, e.g.,SAP SE v. Lakshmi Reddy Bhumireddy and P. Hareesh, WIPOCase No. D2017-0396; Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. Cameron Jackson,
WIPO Case No. ...
2017-07-10 - Case Details
Furthermore, the Respondent does not have to sell at any price should it decide to continue with expanding it uses internally with its own business models.
(p) The Respondent did its proper due diligence in determining was generic for any use in the United States where it does all its business - including by searching the USPTO for GREENFORT and GREEN FORT trade marks prior to buying the Disputed Domain Name in the “SnapNames” auction. ...
2016-06-28 - Case Details
The specific cumulative circumstances in this case are indicative of bad faith on the part of the Respondent in its registration and/or use of the Domain Name (see The Coca-Cola Company v. P. Engbers,
WIPO Case No. DNL2012-0037; and Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,
WIPO Case No. ...
2016-03-23 - Case Details
In support of that contention, Novo Point has submitted voluminous documents that purport to show that the disputed domain name has been under the same beneficial ownership since 2002 and that "Domain Vault is an imposter without legal rights" (Novo Point's submission at p. 4). Complainant argues that Novo Point was not the registrant of the disputed domain name at the time the Complaint was filed, had no direct or indirect ownership or agency relationship with Domain Vault, and that Novo Point lost control of the disputed domain name as a result of a U.S. federal district court order transferring the disputed domain name, and other domain names, that had been part of a receivership in a federal court action in the U.S. ...
2016-07-18 - Case Details
Lorna Kang a/ka Yong Li a/ka Mahmoud Nadim a/k/a The Data in Bulkregister.com's WHOIS Database is p a/k/a Amjad Kausar,
Caso OMPI No. D2005-0635).
El nombre de dominio en disputa es similar en grado de confusión a la marca AMAZON de la Promovente, dado que éste contiene a dicha marca en su totalidad.
...
2017-08-25 - Case Details
DMX2014-0021. Véase también GA Modefine S.A. c. Sparco P/L,
Caso OMPI No. D2000-0419.
3 Sin embargo, la página específica a la que se encuentra direccionado el nombre de dominio en disputa contiene enlaces a otras páginas de dicho sitio web en las que también se ofertan productos que compiten con los del Promovente, lo que se desprende de las pruebas aportadas por las partes y que este Experto corroboró al acceder al mismo y hacer click en la pestaña “Audio y Equipos de Sonido”. ...
2017-11-27 - 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. ...
2018-02-07 - Case Details
D2018-0387; SAP SE v. Lakshmi Reddy Bhumireddy and P. Hareesh,
WIPO Case No. D2017-0396; Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. Cameron Jackson,
WIPO Case No. ...
2018-12-06 - Case Details
Moreover, Complainant waited until 2018 to bring this Complaint against Respondent, more than 12 years after Respondent established its website. As stated in WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.17, “[p]anels have…noted that in specific cases, certain delays in filing a UDRP complaint may make it more difficult for a complainant to establish its case on the merits […]”. ...
2018-12-21 - Case Details
The Respondent is WhoIs Privacy Protection Services, Inc. of Kirkland, Washington, United States / Phil Allen, Flying Dog Enterprises of Erie, Colorado, United States, represented by Thomas P. Howard LLC, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with eNom, Inc. ...
2018-10-04 - Case Details
投诉人及其关联公司和子公司的业务涉及多个行业，如纺织、钢铁、能源、汽车制造、电子产品、通信、金融等领域。
根据投诉人提交的证据（附件P），投诉人自1917年起便开始使用TATA作为投诉人的商标和商号迄今，且投诉人在印度及其他多个国家和地区拥有TATA注册商标及 TATA 系列注册商标，包括中国（如第3205191号 “”注册商标，注册日期为2004年1月14日；第3205189号注册商标“”，注册日期为2007年9月21日；第3787801号注册商标“塔塔”，注册日期为2005年10月7日；等）。...
2018-11-22 - Case Details