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”. ...
2021-09-01 - Case Details
Zhijun Guo,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0184; LEGO Juris A/S v. P N S Enterprises,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0170; LEGO Juris A/S v. David Palmer,
WIPO Case No. D2008-1826; LEGO Juris A/S v. ...
2015-03-17 - Case Details
If such argument is accepted, then many other people with actual Chinese trade names (let alone intended Chinese trade names) with sounds starting with the English pronunciation of the consonants “K” and “P” will be able to claim that they have an interest in the term “KPARK”. This is too farfetched.
Prior Panels have held that failure to respond to a cease and desist letter can be evidence of bad faith. ...
2018-10-02 - Case Details
Disputed Domain Names
Trademark
Numerical / Descriptive Terms / Letter(s)
111jbb.com
JBB
111
118jbb.com
JBB
118
188006.com
188
006
188379550645904.com
188
379550645904
18839042892275748584-188jbb.com
188 / JBB
39042892275748584-
1884948593965.com
188
4948593965
18849549595949.com
188
49549595949
1885038450384058395.com
188
5038450384058395
188933.com
188
933
188jbb.com
188 / JBB
N/A
188jbb.xyz
188 / JBB
N/A
188jbbag.com
188 / JBB
ag
188jbbdh.com
188 / JBB
dh
188jbbdhw.com
188 / JBB
dhw
188jbbvip.org
188 / JBB
vip
188jbbzx.com
188 / JBB
zx
222jbb.com
JBB
222
333jbb.com
JBB
333
444jbb.com
JBB
444
555jbb.com
JBB
555
666jbb.com
JBB
666
777jbb.com
JBB
777
999jbb.com
JBB
999
a188jbb.com
188 / JBB
a
aaa188jbb.com
188 / JBB
aaa
b188jbb.com
188 / JBB
b
bbb188jbb.com
188 / JBB
bbb
c188jbb.com
188 / JBB
c
ccc188jbb.com
188 / JBB
ccc
d188jbb.com
188 / JBB
d
ddd188jbb.com
188 / JBB
ddd
e188jbb.com
188 / JBB
e
eee188jbb.com
188 / JBB
eee
f188jbb.com
188 / JBB
f
fff188jbb.com
188 / JBB
fff
g188jbb.com
188 / JBB
g
ggg188jbb.com
188 / JBB
ggg
h188jbb.com
188 / JBB
h
hhh188jbb.com
188 / JBB
hhh
iii188jbb.com
188 / JBB
iii
j188jbb.com
188 / JBB
j
jbb10086.com
JBB
10086
jbb111.vip
JBB
111
jbb123.com
JBB
123
jbb2000.com
JBB
2000
jbb2017.com
JBB
2017
jbb2018.com
JBB
2018
jbb2019.com
JBB
2019
jbb2020.com
JBB
2020
jbb222.vip
JBB
222
jbb333.vip
JBB
333
jbb444.vip
JBB
444
jjj188jbb.com
188 / JBB
jjj
k188jbb.com
188 / JBB
k
kkk188jbb.com
188 / JBB
kkk
l188jbb.com
188 / JBB
I
lll188jbb.com
188 / JBB
III
m188jbb.com
188 / JBB
m
mmm188jbb.com
188 / JBB
mmm
n188jbb.com
188 / JBB
n
nnn188jbb.com
188 / JBB
nnn
o188jbb.com
188 / JBB
o
ooo188jbb.com
188 / JBB
ooo
p188jbb.com
188 / JBB
p
ppp188jbb.com
188 / JBB
ppp
q188jbb.com
188 / JBB
q
qqq188jbb.com
188 / JBB
qqq
r188jbb.com
188 / JBB
r
rrr188jbb.com
188 / JBB
rrr
s188jbb.com
188 / JBB
s
sss188jbb.com
188 / JBB
sss
ttt188jbb.com
188 / JBB
ttt
u188jbb.com
188 / JBB
u
uuu188jbb.com
188 / JBB
uuu
v188jbb.com
188 / JBB
v
vip188jbb.co
188 / JBB
vip
vip188jbb.com
188 / JBB
vip
vip188jbb.net
188 / JBB
vip
vip188jbb.org
188 / JBB
vip
vip188jbb.tv
188 / JBB
vip
vvv188jbb.com
188 / JBB
vvv
x188jbb.com
188 / JBB
x
xxx188jbb.com
188 / JBB
xxx
y188jbb.com
188 / JBB
y
yyy188jbb.com
188 / JBB
yyy
z188jbb.com
188 / JBB
z
zzz188jbb.com
188 / JBB
zzz
The disputed domain names incorporate 188 and/or JBB elements of the marks in their entirety, and the addition of the numerical / descriptive terms / letter(s) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the Complainant’s trademarks. ...
2020-06-11 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that the test for confusing similarity under the Policy is confined to a comparison of the disputed domain names and the trademarks alone, independent of the products or services for which the disputed domain names are used or other marketing and use factors. See F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. P Martin,
WIPO Case No. D2009-0323.
The Complainant further submits that is well established that the specific top level of the domain name extensions ".com", ".org" or ".net" should not be taken into consideration when comparing the trademark in which the Complainant claims rights and the disputed domain names. ...
2012-03-05 - Case Details
Arnout, Jan Stal, con domicilio en Amsterdam, Países Bajos, representada por Elzaburu Abogados y Consultores P. Industrial e Intelectual, España.
2. El Nombre de Dominio y el Registrador
El nombre de dominio está registrado con Key-Systems GmbH dba domaindiscount24.com (el “Registrador”).
3. ...
2013-02-07 - Case Details
Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition (4th ed. 2005) §31:10, p. 31-35 and cases cited therein. The remedies under the Policy are similarly injunctive rather than compensatory in nature, and the focus is on avoiding confusion in the future as to the source of goods or services. ...
2014-01-10 - Case Details
In fact, a number of panels have found for the respondents in cases
involving generic terms or acronyms. See Newstoday Printers and Publishers
(P) Ltd. v. InetU, Inc., WIPO Case No.
D2001-0085; EAuto, L.L.C. v. Net Me Up, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0104; Diknah, S.L. v. ...
2006-08-04 - Case Details
D2008-0209:
“A number of Panel decisions under the Policy have considered whether a respondent's ownership of a registered trade mark corresponding to the disputed domain name, is sufficient on its own to establish a right or legitimate interest under Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
One of the early cases, was Madonna Ciccone p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and Madonna.com,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847. In that case, the panel said:
‘It would be a mistake to conclude that mere registration of a trade mark creates a legitimate interest under the Policy … To establish cognizable rights, the overall circumstances should demonstrate that the registration was obtained in good faith for the purpose of making bona fide use of the mark in the jurisdiction where the mark is registered, and not obtained merely to circumvent the application of the Policy.'
...
2008-11-07 - Case Details
Such a use cannot constitute a “bona fide” offering of goods or services (citing Madonna Ciccone p/k/a Madonna v Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847).
(ii) The Respondent is not offering goods or services through the Respondent's website. ...
2008-12-23 - Case Details
This is comparable to a situation where a person makes application to register a trade mark when another party has prior rights in that trade mark arising from use of that mark of which the trade mark applicant is aware. Webster & Page, op. cit, p. state the following in this regard “In Oils International (Pty) Ltd v William Penn Oils Ltd, the court came to the conclusion that the bona fide choice of a mark is sufficient to entitle applicant to make the claim to proprietorship provided for in the Act, but that, if the claim proprietorship is challenged, he must be in a position to show some sort of title to the mark in the sense that he either acquired it from someone or originated it. ...
2008-09-18 - 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.
...
2002-09-30 - Case Details
The scope of Complainant's trademark rights is insufficient to
bar Respondent from acquiring legitimate rights in the same term when used for
a different purpose, such as a URL":
Recognizing that anyone has a right to register common words in the language,
a legitimate interest is even established where a Respondent’s only purpose
in registering a common word domain name is for resale: Newstoday Printers
and Publishers (P) Ltd. v. InetU, Inc., (WIPO
Case No. D2001-0085); Audiopont, Inc. v. eCorp, (WIPO
Case No. D2001-0509); Kis v. ...
2002-01-31 - Case Details
The Complainant submitted evidence of registration of a number of trademarks for PIERRE BALMAIN and BALMAIN in various forms with and without additional elements (including the letters P B). These included:
FR 1551543 PIERRE BALMAIN (stylised); Classes 14, 26 dated September 20, 1989* FR 1526016 PIERRE BALMAIN (& device); Classes 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 24, 25, 26, 27, 33, 34 dated April 25, 1989, renewed March 19, 1999
FR 1560170 BALMAIN (stylised); Classes 6, 9, 11, 14, 16, 18, 20, 24, 25, 27, 34 dated November 15, 1989, renewed September 24, 1999
FR 99 776 880 BALMAIN (stylised); Classes 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 33, 34 dated February 16, 1999
FR 1589161 PIERRE BALMAIN+PB (stylised); Classes 9, 11, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 33, 34 dated April 27, 1990, renewed November 29, 1999
IR 583755 PIERRE BALMAIN + device; Classes 16, 21, 24, 33, 34 dated March 23, 1992
IR 451759 balmain; Classes 6, 9, 11, 14, 16, 18, 20, 24, 25, 27, 34, renewed April 25, 2000
IR 758712 BALMAIN (stylised); Classes 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 33, 34 dated April 10, 2001
IR 572948 PIERRE BALMAIN + PB (stylised); Classes 9, 14, 18, 25, 27 dated July 19, 1991
IR 440345 PIERRE BALMAIN + device; Classes 9, 14, 25 dated October 16, 1978*
IR 278611 PIERRE BALMAIN PARIS (stylised); Class 18 dated January 17, 1984
IR 439276 PIERRE BALMAIN + device; Classes 18, 20, 34 dated June 28, 1978*
IR 477309 pierre balmain + device; Class 21 dated May 10, 1983
IR 183835 PIERRE BALMAIN (stylised); Class 25 dated April 2, 1995
IR 455133 pierre balmain + device; Class 28 dated September 26, 1980*
IR 541639 PIERRE BALMAIN + device; Class 33 dated July 19, 1989
IR 560360 PIERRE BALMAIN + PB (stylised); Classes 14, 18, 25, dated September 17, 1990
CTM 1262039 BALMAIN (stylised); Classes 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 33, 34 dated July 30, 1999
CTM 1584549 PIERRE BALMAIN PARIS + PB (stylised); Class 14 dated March 30, 2000
CTM 390229 PIERRE BALMAIN + PB (stylised); Classes 9, 14, 16, 18, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 33, 34 dated October 8, 1997
(*evidence of renewal of these registrations was not provided).
...
2003-07-03 - Case Details
D2000-1415 a number of other
cases have nevertheless resulted in denials.
For instance, the case of Gordon Sumner, p/k/a Sting v. Michael Urvan,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0596, found that the
well known rock singer Sting did not necessarily have rights in the name “Sting”
as a trademark simply because he was well known by that name. ...
2004-08-06 - Case Details
López de Zavalía, Teoría de los Contratos, Tomo
I, Parte General, Edit. Zavalía, Buenos Aires, 1984, p. 362, comentando
el referido art. 504, "(e)ntre promitente y tercero, media una relación de expectativa,
y una vez producida la aceptación, de obligación". ...
2000-05-02 - Case Details
Mackenzie "to trademark his name" but she "hesitated because of the legal financial costs to the business of B&B Productions as the trademark should only benefit Mr Avila as an individual and not the business [she] was involved with him"; and
(p) Ms. Mackenzie does not deny that she asked for a payment of $10,000 in relation to the Domain Name but appears to contend that this represents "fair value for fair work/contribution."
7. ...
2004-03-31 - Case Details
Cologne Zone,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1809; Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0847).
A.3 Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Complainant submits that Respondent registered the domain name in dispute in bad faith as Complainant had made extensive use of and registered its trademark BLACKBERRY in Canada, the United States of America, and many other countries throughout the world for many years prior to registration of the domain name in dispute on May 19, 2006. ...
2008-11-17 - Case Details
Finally, as stated in WIPO Overview 3.0, Section 2.10.1, "[p]anels have recognized that merely registering a
domain name comprised of a dictionary word or phrase does not by itself automatically confer rights or
legitimate interests on the respondent; panels have held that mere arguments that a domain name
corresponds to a dictionary term/phrase will not necessarily suffice”.
...
2022-04-29 - Case Details
Reviewing each of these factors, the Panel finds that there is no evidence of Respondent’s use of, or
demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or
services; that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name; and that Respondent is not
making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name. Importantly, the Panel observes that
“[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.” ...
2022-12-29 - Case Details