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. ...
2010-06-17 - Case Details
Lythion Services Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0035; Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications International AB, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, Sony Corporation v. ...
2012-11-29 - 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). In the present case, the Panel also notes that the phrase “car donation program” is descriptive of one of the key fund raising activities in which the Second Complainant engages for the benefit of the First Complainant. ...
2013-07-29 - Case Details
Also see Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0429, Sony Kabushiki Kaisha (also trading as Sony Corporation) v. Inja, Kil,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1409 and Missoni S.p.A. v. ...
2016-06-23 - Case Details
Conversely, different considerations may apply to adaptations of a well-known and distinctive trademark, for instance, SONY (Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja Kil,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1409).
The disputed domain name was registered on March 3, 2016, which was after the Complainant first acquired rights in its 1XBET trademark on July 27, 2015. ...
2018-02-14 - Case Details
The Complainant’s
reliance on prior Panel decisions in Sony Kabushiki Kaisha (also trading
as Sony Corporation) v. Inja, Kil, WIPO
Case No. D2000-1409, and Empresa Brasileira de Telecomunicações S.A...
2005-09-23 - Case Details
Javier Garcia Quintas and Christiandior.net, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0226 and WIPO Case No. D2000-1409,
Sony Kabushiki Kaisha also trading as Sony Corporation v. Inja, Kil “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.
...
2006-03-14 - Case Details
Cam Creek. Co., Inc, (WIPO
case No. D2000-0113); Sony Kabushiki Kaisha (also trading as Sony Corporation)
v. Inja, Kil (WIPO case No. D2000-1409)
and Warner Lambert Export Limited v. ...
2001-09-10 - Case Details
D2002-0215 (the “neutral” addition of “girls”
in the Domain Name was a difference insufficient to
avoid confusion with registered mark); Sony Corp. v. Park Kwangsoo, WIPO
Case No. D2001-0167 ( confusingly similar to Complainant’s
SONY mark).
...
2006-09-18 - Case Details
Carrington, NAF Case No. 184899 (October 20, 2003) (redirecting users to competing web sites of Complainant's while earning profits in the form of referral found to be bad faith use); Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications International AB, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, Sony Corporation v. ...
2009-05-29 - Case Details
Pregunta 2.5, en WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions).
4 En Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, Sony Corporation c. Heinz Windheim,
Caso OMPI No. ...
2009-05-26 - Case Details
It is well established in prior UDRP decisions that such confusion, and the resultant misdirection of Internet traffic, is independently sufficient to establish bad faith. See e.g. Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications International AB, Telefonaktiebloaget LM Ericsson, Sony Corporation v. ...
2013-02-11 - 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. ...
2009-12-30 - Case Details
One or more descriptive elements cannot remove the overall impression made on the public by the 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). In addition, the Panel notes in the present case that the addition of the letters “cz” to the Complainant’s trademark also renders the disputed domain name very similar to the Complainant’s website address in the Czech Republic, namely “www.o2.cz” and this in the Panel’s view is likely to lead to even greater confusion.
...
2012-12-05 - Case Details
Dissertationdoctors.com and Dissertation-doctors.com,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0348; Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications International AB, Sony Corporation, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. ...
2012-11-28 - Case Details
Dissertationdoctors.com and Dissertation-doctors.com,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0348; Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications International AB, Sony Corporation, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. ...
2012-12-11 - Case Details
D2000-0035; Pomellato S.P.A. v Richard Tonetti,
Caso OMPI No. 2000-0493; Rollerblade, Inc. v Chris McCrady,
Caso OMPI No. D2000-0429; y Sony Kabushiki Kaisha also trading as Sony Corporation v Inja Kil,
Caso OMPI No. D2000-1409.
Asimismo señala la Promovente, que “Las Marcas” se registraron con anterioridad a la fecha en que fue registrado el nombre de dominio en disputa, por lo que resulta inobjetable que, se actualiza el primero de los supuestos requeridos por el artículo 1.a.i. de la LDRP y el artículo 3 B.viii.1. del Reglamento.
...
2013-01-11 - Case Details
Peter Lombardo, Marino Sussich and Ray Landers,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1511; Sony Kabushiki Kaisha (also trading as Sony Corporation) v. Inja, Kil,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1409; Sanofi-aventis v. ...
2012-05-11 - Case Details
Other UDRP cases have taken a similar approach (e.g. Sony Kabushiki Kaisha (also trading as Sony Corporation) v. Inja, Kil,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1409.)
There are a number of indicators in this case that the Respondent was well-aware of the Complainant’s marks when it registered the disputed domain names:
- The Complainant’s marks are very well-known world-wide. ...
2015-03-12 - Case Details
It is well recognized in cases under the Policy that where such a mark is incorporated into a domain name in its entirety, the addition of a generic or descriptive word 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 Panel finds in the present matter that the dominant part of the disputed domain name is the Complainant’s SAP trademark and furthermore that the generic word “solutions” in the disputed domain name is likely to enhance the prospect of confusion, given that it is a word frequently used to describe the Complainant’s products and services, including, for example, in the Interbrand survey noted in the Factual Background section above.
...
2013-05-13 - Case Details