D2000-0362
(June 19, 2000) (finding identical to Complainant’s
mark because the addition of .com after the name “OXYGEN” was not
a distinguishing difference); see also Sony Kabushiki Kaisha (also
trading as Sony Corporation) v. Inja, Kil, WIPO
Case No. D2000-1409 (December 9, 2000) (finding that “[n]either the
addition of an ordinary descriptive word . . . nor the suffix ‘.com’
detract from the overall impression of the dominant part of the name. . . ”).
...Once a complainant establishes that a respondent’s domain name is identical
or confusingly similar to complainant’s mark, and that complainant makes
a prima facie case of lack of rights or legitimate interests, the burden shifts
to respondent to establish some right or legitimate interest in respect of the
domain name. Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Sony.net, WIPO
Case No. D2000-1074 (November 28, 2000). In light of Respondent’s
default, and since the Complainant has made a prima facie case, this Panel presumes
that Respondent has no such rights or legitimate interest.
...
2005-11-29 - Case Details
Sterling Hotel Group Ltd,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0086; Sony Kabushiki Kaisha (also trading as Sony Corporation) v. Inja, Kil,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1409. Complainant contends that Respondent’s inaction with regard to the domain name coupled with Complainant’s well-known marks support a finding of bad faith and cites Compaq Computer Corporation v. ...Sterling Hotel Group Ltd,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0086; and Sony Kabushiki Kaisha (also trading as Sony Corporation) v. Inja, Kil,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1409. Given the long use, substantial reputation of Complainant’s SHAW marks and significant presence of Complainant’s business on the Internet through numerous other registered domain name incorporating the SHAW marks, the compelling conclusion of the Panel is that Respondent, by choosing to register and use a domain name which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SHAW marks, intended to ride on the goodwill of Complainant’s trade mark in an attempt to exploit, for commercial gain, Internet traffic destined for Complainant. ...
2007-11-28 - Case Details
It is well established that the specific top level domain name is generally not an element of distinctiveness that can be taken into consideration when evaluating the identity or confusing similarity between the complainant’s trademark and the domain name (cf. Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications International AB, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson c/o Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB, Sony corporation, c/o Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB v. ...
2012-02-13 - Case Details
It would also be useful to refer to certain other decisions of the Center in
the following cases wherein despite certain prefixes and suffixes, the disputed
domain names were held to be confusingly similar.
(a) Sony Kabushiki Kaisha (also trading as Sony Corporation) v. Inja,
Kil, WIPO Case No. D2000-1409:
In this case the Center has held that user of various other prefixes and suffixes
with the mark SONY such as sonyacademy.com, sonycampus.com, sonycollege.com,
worldsony.com, sunsony.com, dreamsony.com etc. would not entitle the respondent
in that case to continue with the disputed domain names registrations and the
order for their transfer in favour of the complainant was passed.
...D2000-1489 : The Center in this case held that there is no doubt
that the name "indya.com" of the complainant and the impugned domain name i.e.,
"indyanews.com", "indyanews.net" and indyanews.org" by the respondent are identical
and confusingly similar.
(e) Sony Corporation v. Setec, Case No. D2001-0167
: In this case, the Center has held that the domain name registered by the
respondent, namely, "newsony.com" is virtually identical and confusingly similar
to the domain name of the complainant "SONY.COM".
...
2001-06-27 - Case Details
Apart from the decisions which have been relied upon by the Complainant, it would also be useful to refer to certain other decisions of the Center in the following cases wherein despite certain prefixes and suffixes, the disputed domain names were held to be confusingly similar.
(a) Sony Kabushiki Kaisha (also trading as Sony Corporation) v. Inja, Kil,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1409: In this
case the Center has held that user of various other prefixes and suffixes with
the mark SONY such as , , ,
, , etc. would
not entitle the respondent in that case to continue with the disputed domain
names registrations and the order for their transfer in favour of the complainant
was passed.
...D2000-1489: The Center in this case held that there is no doubt
that the name of the complainant and the impugned domain name
i.e., , and
by the respondent are identical and confusingly similar.
(e) Sony Corporation Vs. Park Kwangsoo, WIPO
Case No.D2001-0167: In this case, the Center has held that the domain name
registered by the respondent, namely, is virtually identical
and confusingly similar to the domain name of the complainant .
...
2003-06-16 - Case Details
The descriptive and generic elements do not take away the overall impression the dominant part of the domain name, being the Trademark, makes on the public (Sony Kabushiki Kaisha (also trading as Sony Corporation) v. Inja, Kil,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1409, F. Hoffman-La Roche AG v. ...
2010-06-04 - Case Details
Furthermore, the Panel may make negative inferences arising from the Respondent’s failure to respond. See, e.g., Sony Kabushiki Kaisha (also trading as Sony Corporation) v. Inja, Kil,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1409.
The Panel finds that in light of all the circumstances of this case the Complainant has established that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, as outlined in paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
7. ...
2018-06-25 - Case Details
Diabetes Home Care, Inc. and DHC Services,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0174;
- Sony Kabushiki Kaisha (also trading as Sony Corporation) v. Inja, Kil,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1409;
- America Online, Inc. v. ...
2010-07-06 - Case Details
The Panel may also make negative inferences arising from Respondent's failure to respond. See, e.g., Sony Kabushiki Kaisha (also trading as Sony Corporation) v. Inja, Kil,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1409.
The Panel finds that Complainant has established that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, as outlined in paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
7. ...
2016-01-13 - Case Details
Diabetes Home care and DHC services, WIPO
Case No. D2001-0174; Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Kil Inja, WIPO
Case No. D2000-1409; America Online Inc v. Chris Hoffman, WIPO
Case No. ...Diabetes Home Care, Inc. and DHC
Services, WIPO Case No. D2001-0174;
Sony Kabushiki Kaisha (also trading as Sony Corporation) v. Kil Inja,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1409; Nokia Corporation
v. ...
2006-09-11 - Case Details
Diabetes Home care and DHC services,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0174; Sony Kabushiki
Kaisha v. Kil Inja, WIPO Case No. D2000-1409;
America Online Inc v. Chris Hoffman, WIPO
Case No. ...Diabetes Home Care, Inc. and DHC
Services, WIPO Case No. D2001-0174;
Sony Kabushiki Kaisha (also trading as Sony Corporation) v. Kil Inja,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1409; Nokia Corporation
v. ...
2006-09-11 - Case Details
It is well established under the Policy that confusing similarity arises when the distinctive portion of a trademark is combined with a common word. See Sony Kabushiki Kaisha (also trading as Sony Corporation) v. Inja Kil,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1409 (December 9, 2000) (finding that “[n]either the addition of an ordinary descriptive word...nor the suffix ‘.com’ detract from the overall impression of the dominant part of the name in each case, namely the trademark SONY” and thus Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is satisfied); see also Homer TLC v. ...
2008-04-21 - Case Details
D2001-0026 (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of the complainant combined with a generic word or term); see also, Sony Kabushiki Kaisha (also trading as Sony Corporation) v. Inja, Kil,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1409 (finding that “[n]either the addition of an ordinary descriptive word...nor the suffix “.com” detract from the overall impression of the dominant part of the name in each case, namely the trademark SONY” and thus Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i) is satisfied). ...
2009-05-18 - Case Details
The Respondent must produce evidence in order to show that he or she has been ‘commonly known' by the domain name”. See also Sony Kabushiki Kaisha aka Sony Corporation v. Sony Holland,
WIPO Case No. D2008-1025 and Red Bull GmbH v. ...
2009-06-15 - Case Details
D2001-0026 (finding confusing similarity where the domain name contains the identical mark of the complainant combined with a generic word or term); see also, Sony Kabushiki Kaisha (also trading as Sony Corporation) v. Inja, Kil,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1409 (finding that “[n]either the addition of an ordinary descriptive word […] nor the suffix ‘.com’ detract from the overall impression of the dominant part of the name in each case, namely the trademark SONY” and thus Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i) is satisfied).
...
2012-10-09 - Case Details
The addition of a gTLD such as ".com" is insufficient to overcome a legitimate claim of confusing similarity. See Sony Kabushiki Kaisha (also trading as Sony Corporation) v. Inja, Kil,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1409 (finding that "[n]either the addition of an ordinary descriptive word ... nor the suffix '.com' detract from the overall impression of the dominant part of the name in each case, namely the trademark SONY").
...
2015-04-20 - Case Details
It is well-established that the addition of a common descriptive word to a distinctive mark does not diminish the risk of confusion. See Sony Kabushiki Kaisha (also trading as Sony Corporation) v. Inja, Kil,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1409 (“Neither the addition of an ordinary descriptive word (either as prefix or suffix) nor the suffix ‘.com’ detract from the overall impression of the dominant part of the name in each case, namely the trademark SONY, instantly recognizable as one of the most famous trademarks in the world.”). ...
2016-05-13 - Case Details
It is also well established that the addition of a generic or descriptive term
to a famous mark fails to distinguish the resulting domain name from the mark
or dispel the resulting confusion. Sony Kabushiki Kaisha (also trading as
Sony Corporation) v. Kil Inja, WIPO Case
No. D2000-1409 (December 9, 2000); General Electric Company v. ...Rights or Legitimate Interests: Policy 4(a)(ii)
Once a complainant establishes that a respondent’s domain name is identical
or confusingly similar to complainant’s mark, and that complainant has
not authorized respondent to use the mark, the burden shifts to respondent to
establish some right or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name. Sony
Kabushiki Kaisha v. Sony.net, WIPO Case
No. D2000-1074 (November 28, 2000).
There is no evidence in the record that Respondent is in any way associated
with Complainant, that Respondent is now or was ever known by the Domain Names,
or that Respondent has other authority or permission to use Complainant’s
GE name and mark in Respondent’s domain names. ...
2005-04-07 - Case Details
The mere addition of a common term or phrase such as “tunes”
to the PEPSI mark is of no import or significance. See, e.g., Sony
Kabushiki Kaisha (also trading as Sony Corporation) v. Kil Inja, WIPO
Case D2000-1409 (addition of ordinary descriptive word as prefix or suffix
to a world-famous mark such as SONY does not detract from the overall impression
of the dominant part of the name, the famous mark); America Online, Inc.
...
2005-10-17 - Case Details
Diabetes Home care and DHC services,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0174; Sony Kabushiki Kaisha (also trading as Sony Corporation) v Inja, Kil,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1409; America Online Inc v. ...
2011-06-24 - Case Details