BASF) et, sur l’ensemble de la question, P.Tréfigny, L’imitation, contribution à l’étude juridique des comportements référentiels, Coll . CEIPI, PUS, 2000, n° 326, p. 243, note 60).
La Commission conclut que dans le cas où le terme "sucks" serait aisément compris comme potentialité de site critique de la marque "accor", la formule "accorsucks", reprend, sans risque de confusion, intégralement la marque "accor", -et pour des services identiques-, en sorte que le nom de domaine est à cet égard identique à la marque sur laquelle le Requérant a des droits. ...
2001-03-15 - Case Details
See FIRST COUNCIL DIRECTIVE of 21 December 1988 to
approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (89/104/EEC),
OJ L 040 , 11/02/1989 P. 0001 – 0007, and Section 72 of the Trade Marks
Act 1994 (UK). See, e.g., Aktiebolaget Volvo v. Heritage (Leicester)
Ltd, Chancery Division (UK), May 7, 1999. ...
2000-09-27 - Case Details
Since there is no remedy requested by the Complainant (see Complaint, part VI, p. 13) the Respondent requests the Panel to fully reject the Complaint and decides for the Respondent’s petition to continue lawfully holding the FraVeGa.com domain name. ...
2000-12-11 - Case Details
When he was subsequently required to change hosting services, the new administrative contact p
osted, as is their apparent custom, text entitled "Welcome to www.lifemagazine.com" but without any email link to the Respondent.
...
2001-02-15 - Case Details
The Respondent is The Webposters (a/k/a Mark’s Paint Store, Inc.), P. O. Box 4278,
North Hollywood, California 91617, USA. The administrative contact for the
Respondent is Mr. ...
2001-02-09 - Case Details
The Respondent is James Walters of Superdrug Com whose contact address is P O Box 583, Skellingthorpe, Lincoln LN6 5RJ, U.K.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The domain names, which are the subject of this Complaint, are and which were registered on or about October 12, 2000.
...
2001-04-30 - Case Details
See General Motors Corp v. Bellows (1949) 10 C. P. R. 101 (Supreme Court of Canada)).
If prior to registering the disputed domain name in October 1998 the registrant had searched the World Wide Web or the whois directory of Network Solutions Inc. it would have found that a confusingly similar domain name already existed.
...
2002-02-07 - Case Details
The Complainant invokes the following legal grounds as a basis for the requested relief:
Identity or Confusing Similarity
The Complainant asserts that the domain name is identical or at least confusingly similar to the trademark DE BIJENKORF mainly arguing that the word ‘DE’ ‘has no meaning as it is just the preposition’. (Complaint, Paragraphs 18 and 19 on p. 10)
No Rights
The Complainant contends that pursuant to section 4 (c) of the UDRP :
(i) Before any notice of the dispute, the Respondent did not use, or did not make demonstrable preparations to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services;
(ii) the Respondent has not been and is not commonly known by the domain name; and
(iii) the Respondent is not making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish Complainant’s trademark. ...
2002-04-08 - Case Details
The Parties
The Complainant is eStructure A/S of Aaboulevarden 70, 8000 Aarhus, Denmark.
The Respondent is Hagop Doumanian of P O Box 80540, Las Vegas, NV 89180-0540, United States of America
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The domain name at issue is and the Registrar is Network Solutions, Inc.
3. ...
2002-02-14 - Case Details
The Policy allows three methods for Respondent to demonstrate that it
has rights or legitimate interest in the domain names:
(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.
6.22 It has been held by other Panels that where there is no evidence
that the Respondent has been commonly known by the domain name, this may create
an inference under 4(c)(ii), and a 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); and America Online, Inc. v. ...
2001-06-08 - Case Details
Pacific Fence and Jim Paradise, WIPO
Case No. D2001-0237 (June 11, 2001) at p. 6. [1]. Although there
is a higher possibility of error given the limitations of the Policy’s administrative
proceedings (limitations that are deliberate given the goal of designing a quick,
inexpensive and fair process for resolution of cybersquatting claims), those
errors can be addressed by the parties in any subsequent litigation, should
the losing party elect to pursue such a claim in court, as is its right under
paragraph 4(k) of the Policy...
2003-05-22 - Case Details
See, for example,
the School Certificate, the affidavits from the boy's father, mother, the mother's
uncle in whose house the boy was born, his grandfather and the certified copy
of the Birth Certificate [Annexes L3; O; P; and Q].
9.10.5 Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant fails to make out
a case that the Birth Certificate was either a forgery or was wrongfully obtained
by undue influence.
9.10.6 Further, according to the law of India, the Panel find that the birth
certificate fails to fulfil the requirements of that law and, consequently,
is of no evidential value in the context of this administrative proceeding.
...
2003-05-07 - Case Details
Respondent was Telmex, and
the domain name resolved to a web page for escort services.
p. Societe des Produits Nestle SA v. Telmex Mgmt. Serv., WIPO
Case No. D2002-0070 (April 2, 2002). ...
2002-11-21 - Case Details
Peter Carrington,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0846, October 31, 2002;
or that [p]ersons dealing with, or even perusing the website of [,
and/or ] could easily conclude
that the registrant of the domain name was associated with Wal-Mart’s operation[…]
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2002-12-23 - Case Details
Corp., NAF Case No. 93668 wherein it was found that use of Complainant’s mark "as a portal to suck surfers into a site sponsored by Respondent hardly seems legitimate".
Moreover, in Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com",
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847, the panel observed
that, "use which intentionally trades on the fame of another can not constitute
a bona fide offering of goods or services. ...
2004-02-06 - Case Details
Still the user is invited to
call the Respondent (not the second Respondent) for information on "development"
(i.e. sale, cf. Complaint, p. 14) of the domain name. The only significant change
is the removal of the pop-up screens (Annex 21). ...
2002-06-14 - Case Details
Finally, the Respondents cannot rely on their current use of the Complainant’s trade marks and disputed domain names as the basis for becoming known by the disputed domain name. As stated in Madonna Ciccone p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847, “[t]o conclude otherwise would mean that a [r]espondent could rely on intentional infringement to demonstrate a legitimate interest, an interpretation that is obviously contrary to the intent of the Policy”.
...
2011-09-01 - Case Details
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.” See Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847; F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Transure Enterprise Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2012-02-06 - Case Details
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." Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847. Here, it is not proved that the Respondent adopted KOC EGITIM KOLEJLERI to specifically target or as a deliberate infringement of Complainant's rights. ...
2011-09-16 - Case Details
The above cited case is in line with the present case since the Respondent has registered the Domain Name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks in order to gain profits from the landing page “www.xsenergystore.com” and to misdirect the Internet users from the Complainant’s website and create illusion of a relationship with the Complainant or its products.
Furthermore, in the case Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847, the panel stressed that: “use which intentionally trades on the fame of another can not constitute a ’bona fide’ offering of goods or services. ...
2010-11-18 - Case Details