This initial interest confusion and the misdirection
of Internet traffic is another indication of bad faith. See Sony Ericsson
Mobile Communications International AB, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, Sony
Corporation v. ...
2006-03-13 - Case Details
Javier Garcia Quintas and Christiandior.net, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0226 and Sony Kabushiki Kaisha (also trading as Sony Corporation)
v. Inja, Kil, WIPO Case No. D2000-1409,
“It is inconceivable that the respondent could make any active use of
the disputed domain names without creating a false impression of association
with the complainant. ...
2006-02-06 - Case Details
D2000-0493; Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0429 and Sony Kabushiki Kaisha (also trading as Sony Corporation) v. Inja, Kil,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1409).
Therefore this Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant´s trademark. ...
2010-08-06 - Case Details
The Complainant says that the addition of the generic element “downloadfrom” does nothing to distinguish the domain name from either mark. See Sony Kabushiki Kaisha (also trading as Sony Corporation) v. Inja, Kil,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1409 (December 9, 2000): F. ...
2010-08-06 - Case Details
A descriptive element cannot remove the overall impression made on the public by a trademark which is the dominant part of the domain name (Sony Kabushiki Kaisha (also trading as Sony Corporation) v. Inja, Kil,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1409).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BARCLAY trademark and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy have been satisfied.
...
2011-01-14 - Case Details
It is well recognized in previous cases under the Policy that where such a mark is incorporated in its entirety within a domain name, the addition of one or more generic words will not distinguish that domain name from the mark (Sony Kabushiki Kaisha (also trading as Sony Corporation) v. Inja, Kil,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1409). The dominant part of the disputed domain name is the Complainant's trademark and not the words “benefit” and “center”. ...
2010-07-01 - Case Details
D2000-0641, the selection of domain names are so obviously connected to the complainant's trademark that their very use by someone with no connection with the company suggests opportunistic bad faith. Similarly, in Sony Kabushiki Kaisha (also trading as Sony Corporation) v. Inja, Kil,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1409 where the respondent registered a number of domain names incorporating a well known trademark in its entirety, the panel stated “that it is inconceivable that the respondent could make any active use of the disputed domain names without creating a false impression of association with the complainant”.
...
2010-06-29 - Case Details
The addition of additional
word(s) or letters is insufficient to avoid confusion, as the cases cited by
Complainant correctly conclude. 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 overall impression of the dominant part
of the name, the famous mark); America Online, Inc. v. ...
2005-04-14 - Case Details
D2002-0101 (finding confusingly similar to HERBALIFE);
see also Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Sin, WIPO
Case No. D2000-1007 (finding confusingly similar to SONY).
...See Herbalife International of America v. myherbalife.com,
WIPO Case No. 2002-0101 (finding
is confusingly similar to HERBALIFE); also Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Sin,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1007 (finding
is confusingly similar to SONY).
...
2007-04-12 - Case Details
The problem with domain names in the form is that these are often used by the trademark holder (as is the case here) and are not obviously used in a laudatory way for fan sites, so there is a greater chance of confusion. See, for example, Sony Kabushiki Kaisha also trading as Sony Corporation v. Sin, Eonmok,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1007: “The Panel determines that the domain name ‘mysony.com’ is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark ‘Sony’. ...That which is possessed is the following letters, namely ‘Sony’, which is the Complainant’s trademark. The addition of the letters ‘my’ has the effect of focusing the reader’s attention on the Complainant’s trademark. ...
2021-01-29 - Case Details
Such conduct clearly demonstrates the Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the Domain Names in dispute. Twentieth Century Fox v Risser, supra; Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, supra; and Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, supra.
...Cup International
Limited (WIPO Case No. D2000-0338);
Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, supra; and Telstra Corporation Limited
v. Nuclear Marshmallows, supra.
...
2001-09-18 - Case Details
It is also well-established that where a domain name incorporates a complainant's well-known and distinctive trademark in its entirety, it is confusingly similar to that mark despite the addition of descriptive words such as, in this case, “lease” and “guide”. (see: see e.g. Sony Kabushiki Kaisha (also trading as Sony Corporation) v. Kil Inja,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1409 (addition of ordinary descriptive word as prefix or suffix to a world-famous mark such as SONY does not detract from overall impression of the dominant part of the name, the famous mark); America Online, Inc. v. ...
2010-06-14 - Case Details
Prior UDRP panels have
also found the TLD, being viewed as a standard registration requirement, may typically be disregarded under
the paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy analysis. See also Sony Kabushuki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, WIPO Case No.
D2000-1409.
Complainant also contends that the disputed domain name must be considered confusingly similar to
Complainant’s ALTAR’D STATE Mark because the inserted term “shop” is a reference to Complainant’s
services in the retail apparel industry, but this issue is more properly considered under elements two and
three of the Policy. ...Domain Protection Services Inc. / My Mo, WIPO Case No. D2022-0825; Sony Kabushiki
Kaisha v. Sin, Eonmok, WIPO Case No. D2000-1007.
Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds Complainant has established a prima facie case that
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...
2026-01-02 - Case Details
The Panel finds that including a dictionary word to a disputed domain name consisting of a complainant's trademark in its entirety does nothing to alleviate the confusing similarity.”
- Sony Corporation v. Domain Privacy Service and St. Kitts Registry,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0795 in relation to the domain name it was held that “the disputed domain name contains the Complainant's SONY trade mark in its entirety. ...The addition of this word is not enough to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant's trade mark, and accordingly the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trade mark SONY.”
- Nintendo of America, Inc. v. Gray West International,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1219 where it was held that “the more unique and inherently distinctive the mark, the stronger it is, and the greater the likelihood that the public may confuse a similar mark...
2010-08-02 - Case Details
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, 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. ...
2006-09-08 - Case Details
When used in conjunction with the trademark it could be interpreted
as goods or service emanating from the same source. See Sony Kabushiki Kaisha
also trading as Sony Corporation v. Admin www@promotechnology.com +41227347210promo,
WIPO Case No. ...
2006-11-06 - Case Details
Javier Garcia Quintas and Christiandior.net, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0226 and Sony Kabushiki Kaisha (also trading as Sony Corporation)
v. Inja, Kil, WIPO Case No. D2000-1409,
“It is inconceivable that the Respondent could make any active use of
the disputed domain name without creating a false impression of association
with the Complainant. ...
2006-05-03 - Case Details
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Once a complainant establishes that a respondent’s domain name is identical
or confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark, and has made a prima
facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the
domain name, the burden shifts to the respondent to establish some rights or
legitimates interest with respect to the domain name. Sony Kabushiki Kaisha
a/t/a Sony Corporation v. sony.net, WIPO
Case No. D2000-1074. The Panel noting that that the Complainant has not
authorized the Respondent to use the V&V SUPREMO mark, finds that the Complaint
has made such a prima facie case, which the Respondent has not answered.
...
2007-02-01 - Case Details
It is well recognized in previous cases under the Policy that where such a mark is incorporated in its entirety within a domain name, the addition of one or more generic words will not distinguish that domain name from the mark (see, for example, Sony Kabushiki Kaisha (also trading as Sony Corporation) v. Kil Inja,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1409). The dominant part of the disputed domain name is the Complainant’s trademark and not the word “rewards”. ...
2007-06-21 - Case Details