It is not such a well-known name that worldwide recognition of it can be presumed, such as in some WIPO cases (such as "Wal-Mart", "Sony" and "Singapore Airlines"). Nor can opportunistic cybersquatting be presumed as in the case of TV Globo Ltda. v. ...
2000-12-07 - Case Details
DWP was a very well known, highly successful firm in its own right, representing companies such as Hewlett-Packard, Nokia, Sony, and others. As a result of its success (estimated billings in 2000 were expected to reach nearly US$170 million), the acquisition received widespread media attention.
...
2000-12-20 - Case Details
D2000-0837, addition of the elements "new" and "group"
to the Complainant’s mark, CARREFOUR, was not sufficient to distinguish the
domain name from the Complainant’s marks. Similarly,
in Sony Corporation v. Park Kwangsoo, WIPO
Case No. D2001-0167, in which the prefix "new" was added to the
Complainant’s mark, the Panel found that "there is no doubt that the use
of the domain name is bound to cause confusion and anyone
would relate it with the Complainant. ...
2002-06-24 - Case Details
또한 신청인은 피신청인의 권리나 합법적인 이익이 없음을 적극적으로 증명할 필요는
없고 한 가지 좋은 예를 드는 정도로 충분하며, 피신청인이 적극적으로 입증하여야
한다고 주장한다(Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. sony.net, WIPO
사건번호 D2000-1074).
신청인은 분쟁도메인이름을 입력하는 경우, 로 직접 연결되어 “EURONEXT” 등록상표와 무관한 웹사이트로 이동하게 되므로, 마치 신청인과 연관, 제휴관계가 있는 사이트라고 혼동될 가능성이 있고, 동 사이트는 단순히 “Euro RSCG Next”에 연결시키고 있을 뿐 분쟁도메인이름과 관련하여 적극적인 활동도 하고 있지 않다고 주장한다.
...
2002-05-27 - Case Details
또한 신청인은 피신청인의 권리나 합법적인
이익이 없음을 적극적으로 증명할 필요는 없고 한 가지 좋은 예를 드는 정도로
충분하며, 피신청인이 적극적으로 입증하여야 한다고 주장한다(Sony Kabushiki
Kaisha v. sony.net, WIPO 사건번호 D2000-1074).
신청인은 분쟁도메인이름을 입력하는 경우, 로 직접
연결되어 “EURONEXT” 등록상표와 무관한 웹사이트로 이동하게 되므로, 마치
신청인과 연관, 제휴관계가 있는 사이트라고 혼동될 가능성이 있고, 동 사이트는
단순히 “Euro RSCG Next”에 연결시키고 있을 뿐 분쟁도메인이름과 관련하여
적극적인 활동도 하고 있지 않다고 주장한다.
...
2002-05-27 - Case Details
The word online is a generic term used in relation to the Internet
space. (see Laure Pester (Lorie) and Sony Music Entertainment France SA v.
Movie Name, WIPO Case No. D2003-0312
where the Panel referred to a series of cases which found that the word "online"
grants no distinguishing attributes to the relevant domain name. ...
2003-09-15 - Case Details
D2003-0455; Belupo
d.d. v. WACHEM d.o.o., WIPO Case No. D2004-
0110; Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. sony.net, WIPO
Case No. D2000-1074; The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. Lorna Kang, WIPO
Case No. ...
2005-11-01 - Case Details
It has well been accepted, that: “authors and performers can establish
trademark rights, either by showing that they have registered their names as
marks for certain goods or services, or because, through deployment of the names
as source indicators in commerce, they have unregistered or “common law”
rights to protection against misleading use” (Celine Dion and Sony
Music Entertainment (Canada) Inc. v. Jeff Burgar, WIPO
Case No. D2000-1838). Stated differently: “due to the celebrity’s
fame and the association of their name with their persona, [ … ] a celebrity’s
name can serve as a trademark when identifying the celebrity’s performance
services” (Kevin Spacey v. ...
2005-07-29 - Case Details
To the Panel, this is a clear indication of bad faith. See, e.g., LEGO Juris A/S v. Sony Laksono, N/A / PrivacyProtect.org,
WIPO Case No. D2011-2268.
The Panel also considers as a sign of bad faith the fact that the Respondent continues to use the Domain Name to redirect Internet users to a third party commercial website offering LEGO products as well as products from various other brands for sale, even after he received Complainant’s Cease and Desist email. ...
2015-10-08 - Case Details
Respondent in this proceeding has been complained against in a number of earlier
disputes under the Policy. See, e.g., Celine Dion and Sony Music Entertainment
(Canada) Inc. v. Jeff Burgar,1
WIPO Case No. D2000-1838; Dr. Michael
Crichton v. ...Already in February
2001, a panel found “So long as the admitted bunch of celebrity domain
names were all directed to the “www.celebrity1000.com” site, the
Respondent’s conduct must be characterized as a stockpiling of leading
artistes’ names, their only substantial function then being to attract
people to view advertising on the site.” Celine Dion and Sony Music
Entertainment (Canada) Inc. v. Jeff Burgar operating or carrying on business
as Celine Dion Club, WIPO Case No. ...
2006-07-24 - Case Details
D2000-0493; Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, Caso OMPI No. D2000-0429; Sony Kabushiki
Kaisha (Sony Corporation) v. Inja, Kil, Caso OMPI No. D2000-1409)..
Que consecuentemente se actualiza el primer supuesto de la Política y el párrafo 3 del Reglamento (y cita
Uniroyal Engineered Products, Inc. v. ...
2025-01-20 - Case Details
通用顶级域名如“.com” ，在判断争议域名是否与注册商标相同或混淆性近似可不予考虑（见GA Modefine SA 诉 Yonghui Huang， WIPO 案件编号D2008-0355；Sony Kabushiki Kaisha (also trading as Sony Corporation) 诉 Inja Kil， WIPO 案件编号 D2000-1409；Florida Department of Management Serives诉 Anthony Gorss (or AGCS) ， WIPO 案件编号 D2009-1194；Cube Limited 诉 Super Privacy Service c/o Dynadot，WIPO案件编号 D2016-1153）。
...
2019-07-26 - Case Details
Y es por ello que el prestador de
servicios, no puede utilizar los nombres de dominio en su beneficio y menos
apropiarse de ellos, mediante el registro de los nombres de dominio, que efectúa
por el encargo de la Demandante, para despojarlo después, bajo la justificación
de un conflicto contractual (así lo han señalado, entre otros, el, Sony Kabushiki
Kaisha v. sony.net, Caso OMPI Nº D2000-1074;
o Telstra Corporation Limited v. Peter Yellowlees, Caso
OMPI Nº D2002-0638).
...
2006-04-07 - Case Details
See,
for example, Chanel, Inc. v. Designer Exposure, WIPO
Case No. D2000-1832; Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja Kil, WIPO
Case No. D2000-1409. Thus, while there is no hard evidence that Respondent
profits from the use of the disputed domain name, Respondent’s actions,
as a whole, appear to this Panel, to amount to bad faith registration and use
of the disputed domain name.
7. ...
2006-04-20 - Case Details
D2000-0493, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0429 and Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1409).
The first requirement of the Policy has been met.
...
2008-01-25 - Case Details
D2000-0493, Rollerblade,
Inc. v. Chris McCrady, WIPO Case No. D2000-0429
and Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, WIPO
Case No. D2000-1409).
Therefore, the first requirement of the Policy has been met.
...
2007-01-18 - Case Details
D2000-0493, Rollerblade,
Inc. v. Chris McCrady, WIPO Case No. D2000-0429
and Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, WIPO
Case No. D2000-1409).
Therefore this Panel finds that the domain name is identicalor confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. ...
2007-01-16 - 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 legitimate interest with respect to the domain name. See, Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. sony.net,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1074. The Panel, noting that that the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use the SONIA ROLLAND marks, finds that the Complainant has made such a prima facie case, which the Respondent has not answered.
...
2009-06-24 - Case Details
An early example in which this proposition was established is Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v Sony.net
WIPO Case No. D2000-1074.
The Complainant states that it has not authorized the Respondent to use the domain name. ...
2007-11-02 - Case Details
Pepsi SRL and EMS Computer Industry,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0696; Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Kil Inja,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1409; Sanofi-Aventis v. Direct Response Marketing aka DRM,
WIPO Case No. ...
2007-10-04 - Case Details