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
As found in Panavision, Inc. and Panavision International,
L. P. v. Ed Meyer, d/b/a/ Panavisions Eyewear and Sunglasses, Domains by Proxy,
Inc., and M.P.W., Inc. d/b/a Panavisions Eyewear and Sunglasses, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2004-07-02 - Case Details
Cologne Zone, WIPO
Case No. D2000-1809 and Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi
and “Madonna. Com,” WIPO
Case No. D2000-0847.
The Respondent has not acquired any trademark rights by virtue of being a SUTTON salesperson, is not licensed or otherwise authorized to register the SUTTON Trademarks as domain names and the Complainant has not provided its consent to the Respondent to register the domain names in dispute.
...
2004-06-28 - Case Details
Complainant’s authorized representatives in this administrative proceeding
are: Norman P. Leventhal and Suzanne E. Head, Leventhal, Senter and Lerman P.L.L.C.,
2000 K Street N.W., Suite 600, Washington, D.C. 20006, USA.
...
2002-04-24 - Case Details
Pursuant to Rules, Paragraph 1 ("Definitions")
"(p)arty means a Complainant or a Respondent". The Panel´s decision
can only affect Parties. It is the Respondent who has registered the domain
name and no other entity or person, and it is Mr. ...
2000-05-05 - Case Details
Clue Computing, Inc., 946 F. Supp 8585; 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18013; 41 U.S. P. Q. 2d 1062 (USDC D. Colo. 1996). The Respondent claims that this case is authority for the proposition that "ownership of a registered trademark, even corresponding to a well-known brand, does not automatically entitle its owner to use the corresponding domain name"
As regards bad faith, the Respondent states that the alleged telephone conversation between himself and the Respondent "related in the complaint is completely false and mere fruit of the imagination." ...
2000-08-24 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Respondent’s assertion that the present proceeding amounts to an attempted reverse domain name hijacking is not persuasive to the panel.
7.Decision
Pursuant to the authority of Article 4(i) of the UDRP, the Panel requires that the registration of the Domain Name ("nadca.org") be transferred to the Complainant.
Jeffrey P. Kushan
Presiding Panelist
Dated: July 6, 2000
Footnotes:
1. See, e.g., page 3 of Response, where the Respondent asserts that the "first come first served" principle suggests that he is more entitled to the domain name registration than the Complainant....
2000-07-10 - Case Details
Thomas McCarthy,
McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition (4th ed. 2005) §31:10,
p. 31-35 and cases cited therein (in common law, the defense of laches bars
the recovery of damages incurred before the filing of a lawsuit; this is not
apposite to injunctive relief in a trademark action that seeks to avoid confusion
among customers in the future).
...
2005-10-17 - 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).
In addition, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent the Complainant from reflecting its mark in a corresponding domain name, and that the Respondent has manifestly engaged in a pattern of such conduct.
...
2006-02-24 - Case Details
It is well-established that “use
which intentionally trades on the fame of another cannot constitute a ‘bona
fide’ offering of goods or services”. See Madonna Ciccone,
p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0847 (October 12, 2000); Delta Corporate Identity, Inc.
...
2005-09-22 - Case Details
Typosquatting, by definition, renders the Domain Names confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks (citing Dow Jones & Company, Inc. and Dow Jones, L. P. v. Powerclick, Inc,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1259).
6. The Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the Domain Names:
(i) None of the circumstances listed at paragraph 4(c) of the Policy apply.
...
2008-04-30 - Case Details
Estas marcas incorporan “Asturias” junto a otros vocablos :“Infoasturias” “Asturias en la red” “Asturiasemprende” “Asturias exterior” “Asturias ahora” “Asturias exporta” “Asturias paraíso digital”“Asturias, Espacio educativo” “Saboreando Asturias” “Recrea Asturias” “Asturias Tesoro cultural” “Asturias Tesoro cultural” “Asturias Paraíso natural” “Consejo Consultivo del Principado de Asturias” “SC Sindicatura de Cuentas del Principado de Asturias” “Procuradora General del Principado de Asturias” “Sociedad Regional De Promoción del Principado de Asturias” “TPA Televisión del Principado de Asturias” “R P A Radio del Principado de Asturias” “TPA Radiotelevisión del Principado de Asturias” “SRT Sociedad Regional de Turismo Principado de Asturias” “Sociedad de Promoción Exterior Principado de Asturias” “Instituto de Fomento del Principado de Asturias” “Orquesta del Principado de Asturias” “Orquesta de Cuerda del Principado de Asturias” “Orquesta de Cámara del Principado de Asturias” “SPA Orquesta Sinfónica del Principado de Asturias” “OSPA Orquesta Sinfónica del Principado de Asturias” “Servicio de Publicaciones Principado de Asturias” “Servicio de Salud del Principado de Asturias” “Servicio de Salud. ...
2008-08-04 - Case Details
No obstante lo anterior, generalmente se acepta la proposición de que una marca sirva para fundar derechos o intereses legítimos al amparo de la Política, siempre y cuando las circunstancias en que se haya producido su registro y el uso que se haga de la misma en el comercio así lo justifiquen. Ver Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna c. Dan Parisi and Madonna.com, Caso
OMPI N° D2000-0847 (sería un error concluir que el simple registro de una marca dé origen a un interés legítimo en términos de la Política… para establecer derechos reconocibles, el conjunto de circunstancias debe demostrar que el registro de la marca fue obtenido de buena fe con el propósito de hacer un uso legítimo de ésta en el país donde se concedió); BECA Inc. c. ...
2007-10-01 - 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.)
For the purpose of these proceedings, the Panel has accepted that that single entity is the named Respondent, Paul Klerck. ...
2008-10-01 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
As with the UDRP, the Policy makes no provision for
unsolicited submissions and these are usually considered by panels only in exceptional
circumstances when the party filing an unsolicited submission explains those
circumstances and why the material could not have been submitted initially:
Gordon Sumner, p/k/a Sting v. Michael Urvane, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0596. The Complainant has not shown exceptional circumstances
and has not explained why the contents of its unsolicited submission could not
have been submitted earlier. ...
2007-02-01 - 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. ...
2007-03-16 - Case Details
Xtraplus Corp.,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0125, Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847. The Panel will therefore now proceed to a discussion of the third element of the Policy.
...
2007-05-24 - Case Details
Como afirmó recientemente el rector de la Demandante (ver periódico Excélsior de fecha 8 de mayo de 2009, fútbol, p.3) a propósito de su equipo de fútbol soccer: “Los Tigres de la Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León han sido siempre de la institución y por ello reciben todas las facilidades que piden y necesiten… tiene una gran cantidad de seguidores, muchos de ellos universitarios y egresados”, lo cual resulta igualmente aplicable a su equipo de fútbol americano, del cual la Demandada es uno de tantos ex-jugadores y seguidores que tiene.
...
2009-05-26 - Case Details
Así, un bajo grado de similitud
entre los productos o servicios designados puede ser compensado por un elevado
grado de similitud entre las marcas, y a la inversa” (Sentencia de 29
de septiembre de 1998, apartado 19, asunto C-39/97, Canon Kabushiki Kaisha y
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc. anteriormente Pathe Communications Corporation, Recopilación,
1998, p. I-5532)
Pues bien, frente a lo que sucede en el Derecho español y comunitario de marcas, en la Política lo único que se exige es valorar si los signos que componen la marca y el nombre de dominio son confundibles, de modo que el público normalmente informado y razonablemente atento y perspicaz pueda creer que se trata de los mismos signos, o al menos que el titular de la marca y el nombre de dominio coinciden, o que siendo diferentes media entre ellos algún tipo de vínculo.
...
2006-08-02 - Case Details
For 1300 933 346 (which corresponds to 1300WEDDINGS), Mister Magnets P/L t/a AmeriTel Enterprises is the winning bidder, while Multi National Concepts is the ROU holder. ...
2009-06-17 - Case Details