The bad faith of the Respondent is established by the following elements:
- The Prada trademarks are well-known thus the Respondent could not ignore
the existence of these well-known trademarks at the time of registering the
domain name (see Sony Kabushiki Kaisha also trading
as Sony Corporation v. Sin, Eonmok, WIPO
Case No. D2000-1007).
- The Respondent has never used the domain name concerned. ...- The Respondent offers to sell its rights to the disputed domain name in return
for "an appropriate offer" from the Complainant (see Sony Kabushiki
Kaisha aka Sony Corporation et al. v. Salvatore Vetro, WIPO
Case No. D2001-0575).
...
2002-12-11 - Case Details
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). By not submitting a response, Respondent
has failed to invoke any circumstance that might demonstrate, pursuant to paragraph
4(c) of the Policy, that Respondent holds some right or legitimate interest
in the disputed domain name. ...Paul Brien, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0028 (March 10, 2000). See also Sony Kabushiki Kaisha
(also trading as Sony Corporation) v. Inja, Kil, WIPO
Case No. D2000-1409 (December 9, 2000) (that Sony was a fanciful mark and
perhaps the third most recognized brand in the Western world constituted strong
indicia that respondent had registered and was using domain names incorporating
the Sony mark in bad faith). ...
2005-01-24 - Case Details
Further, a domain name that includes the Complainant's trademark in its entirety, together with a generic or highly descriptive term, is not sufficient to avoid a finding of confusion between the disputed domain name and the trademark (Merrell Pharmaceuticals Inc., Aventis Pharma SA. v. Filips Kostins,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0943; and Sony Kabushiki Kaisha (also trading as Sony Corporation) v. Inja, Kil,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1409).
The Spanish word "negocios" can mean either "shops" or "business" in English1. ...Neither the addition of the generic or highly descriptive term "negocios", nor a hyphen nor the gTLD ".com" to the Disputed Domain Name changes the conclusion that there is a confusing similarity between the NESTLÉ Mark and the Disputed Domain Name. As stated by the panel in Sony Kabushiki Kaisha (also trading as Sony Corporation) v. Inja, Kil, supra, "neither the addition of an ordinary descriptive word nor the suffix '.com' detracts from the overall impression of the dominant part of the name, namely the trademark SONY". ...
2016-08-18 - Case Details
However, it is also useful to refer here to certain other Panel decisions,
namely:
(a) Sony Kabushiki Kaisha (also trading as Sony Corporation) v. Inja, Kil,
WIPO Case No D2000-1409: In this case,
it was held that user of various other prefixes and suffixes with the trade
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 an order was made
for their transfer to the Complainant.
...d) Indya.com Portal Pvt Ltd v Akram Ali, VM Hardware, Case
No D2000-1489: The Panel in this case held that there was no doubt that
the trade mark of the Complainant and the impugned domain
names, ie , and
of the Respondent were identical and confusingly similar.
(e) Sony Corporation v Park Kwangsoo, Case
No D2001-0167: In this case, the Panel held that the domain name registered
by the Respondent, namely, was virtually identical and confusingly
similar to the trade mark of the Complainant "SONY ".
6.3 No legitimate interest of Respondent
The Complainant has contended that the respondent has made no demonstrable
preparations to use the impugned domain name. ...
2001-06-18 - Case Details
Akram Mehmood,
WIPO Case No. DAE 2007-0001 and 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. ...
2009-10-08 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Limited v. Host Master, 1337 Services LLC
Case No. DIO2020-0013
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Limited, United Kingdom, represented IP Twins S.A.S., France.
The Respondent is Host Master, 1337 Services LLC, Saint Kitts and Nevis.
2. ...
2020-12-22 - Case Details
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
It appears from the evidence that the Respondent, or its agents or associates, are using the disputed domain name to redirect Internet traffic to the commercial site of a competitor, Sony Indonesia. Apart from a copy of a supposed page from this site, the evidence on this is somewhat sparse. ...Given the massive reputation in "Philips", the redirection of Internet traffic is likely to deliver a commercial benefit to the Respondent and Sony.
There in no denial of such redirection of traffic, nor assertion that such redirection is bona fide and non-confusing to the public.
...
2001-04-30 - Case Details
A similar claim as to the name of the Respondent was made in Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v Damian Macafee/QTK Internet,
WIPO Case No. D2009-1134.
The email was received after the Panel had been appointed. ...Damian Macafee,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0027) or ‘Walkman’ (see Sony Kabushiki Kaisha, supra) or ‘Carrefour’ (see Carrefour S.A. v. Damian Macafee,
WIPO Case No. D2002-1060). ...
2011-06-27 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel considers
that a reader of the Domain Name would be confused into thinking that the Domain
Name is associated with the Complainant; the prefix “my” even tends
to compound the confusion (see e.g. Sony Kabushiki Kaisha also trading
as Sony Corporation v. Sin, Eonmok, WIPO
Case No. D2000-1007; Ferrero S.p.A. v. ...Jean-Francois Legendre, WIPO
Case No. D2000-1534; Sony Kabushiki Kaisha also trading as
Sony Corporation v. Sin, Eonmok, WIPO
Case No. D2000-1007).
The Panel, therefore, believes that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith, because the domain name, which is composed of the Complainant’s famous trademark with the prefix “my” evokes an association with the Complainant and its products/services. ...
2005-05-25 - Case Details
In the present case, the possessive term “your” tends to focus attention on the LEGAL HELPERS mark, enhancing likely confusion with Complainant's trademark. See Sony Kabushiki Kaisha also trading as Sony Corporation v. Sin, Eonmok,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1007 (in ruling confusingly similar to the complainant's SONY trademark, the panel found that the possessive pronoun directs and focuses the reader's attention on the SONY trademark). ...
2010-07-19 - Case Details
It is well established that such conduct constitutes use in bad faith under the Policy: see e.g. 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. ...
2015-12-09 - Case Details
Peter
Carrington/ Party Night Inc., WIPO Case No. D2003-0114,
, Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications International AB,
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, Sony Corporation v. ...Peter Carrington/ Party Night Inc., WIPO
Case No. D2003-0114, , Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications
International AB, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, Sony Corporation v.
...
2003-06-18 - Case Details
ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC v. Domain Admin
Case No. D2024-5098
1. The Parties
Complainant is Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented
internally.
.../Lorelei Ritchie/
Lorelei Ritchie
Sole Panelist
Date: April 1, 2025
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC v. Domain Admin
Case No. D2024-5098
4. Factual Background
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. ...
2025-04-03 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Laure Pester (Lorie) and Sony Music Entertainment France SA v. Movie Name
Case No. D2003-0312
1. The Parties
The Complainants are Laure Pester, whose stage name is LORIE, of Franconville, France, and Sony Music Entertainment France SA, a French company organized under the laws of France, of Paris, France, represented by Virginie Lapp of Paris, France.
...She owns two French trademark registrations, i.e., "LORIE" N°
003068793 and "LORIE" N°
023199266, applied to various goods and services in classes 3, 9, 14, 21, 24, 25, 28, 35, 38 and 41.
Complainant Sony Music Entertainment France SA (SONY) has an exclusive recording contract with Complainant Lorie’s Producer and thus holds in trust for Complainant Lorie, inter alia, the domain name through which it runs the official LORIE’s website.
...
2003-06-23 - Case Details
Respondent registered the Domain Name only after first working for Sony Music Entertainment (along with Complainant, a co-owner of Kemosabe Records). Respondent has demanded USD 100,000 from Complainant to transfer the Domain Name. ...It is Complainant that took Respondent’s business name after hearing of Respondent’s plans through people at Sony Music Entertainment and, thus, it would be proper for the Panel to find reverse domain name hijacking.
6. ...
2012-11-27 - Case Details
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. By not submitting a response, Respondent has failed to invoke
some circumstance that might demonstrate, pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the
Policy, that Respondent holds some right or legitimate interest in the disputed
domain name. ...Simply registering famous marks as domain names may,
by itself in the appropriate circumstance, support a conclusion of bad faith
registration and use. Sony Kabushiki Kaisha (also trading as Sony Corporation)
v. Inja, Kil, WIPO Case No. D2000-1409
(that Sony was a fanciful mark and perhaps the third most recognized brand in
the Western world constituted strong indicia that respondent had registered
and was using domain names incorporating the Sony mark in bad faith). ...
2005-05-12 - Case Details
The addition of a generic top-level domain name such as “.com” is insufficient to over come 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”). ...
2007-06-21 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
To prevail on its Complaint, the Complainant must prove that: (i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark; (ii) The Respondent has no right or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Sony Kabushiki Kaisha aka Sony Corp. v. Sony Holland,
WIPO Case No. D2008-1025.
In view of the lack of a Response filed by Respondent as required under paragraph 5 of the Rules, this proceeding has proceeded by way of default. ...
2011-09-01 - 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 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, Paragraph4(a)(i) is satisfied).
...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 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, Paragraph4(a)(i) is satisfied).
...
2006-06-20 - Case Details
The Panel agrees with Complainant that the addition of the word “my” to the PSEG trademark does not mitigate the risk of confusion; indeed, it may draw the viewer’s attention to the trademark. See, e.g., Sony Kabushiki Kaisha also trading as Sony Corporation v. Sin, Eonmok,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1007 ("The addition of the letters “my” has the effect of focusing the reader's attention on the Complainant's trademark. ...‘The addition of “my” is not sufficient to avoid confusion’ Sony Kabushiki Kaisha also trading as Sony Corporation v. Sin, Eonmok,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1007.”); Lance Armstrong Foundation v. ...
2011-12-29 - Case Details