However the wording of paragraph 4(c) of the
Policy appears to envisage a respondent taking steps to demonstrate its right
or interest, and it is generally accepted that, once a complainant has proved
that the at-issue domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its mark
and that it has not authorized the respondent to use the domain name, the evidential
onus shifts to the respondent to demonstrate that it has some right or legitimate
interest (see for example Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Sony.net, WIPO
Case No. D2000-1074). The Panel accepts that that is the correct approach.
...
2005-12-05 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that according to the panel in Sony Corporation v. Domain Privacy Service and St. Kitts Registry,
WIPO Case No. D2008-0795 “when a domain name incorporates a complainant's mark in its entirety, it is confusingly similar to that mark despite the addition of other words'”, and further that ‘“Television” is a common word which describes the type of goods and services the Complainant offers. ...
2010-07-20 - Case Details
But the wording of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy
appears to envisage a respondent taking steps to demonstrate its right or interest,
and it is generally accepted that, once a complainant has proved that the domain
name is identical or confusingly similar to its mark and that it has not authorized
the respondent to use the domain name, the evidential onus shifts to the respondent
to demonstrate that it has some right or legitimate interest (see for example
WIPO Case No. D2000-1074, Sony Kabushiki
Kaisha v. Sony.net). The Panel agrees with that general approach.
In this case, the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use an expression which is virtually identical with the Complainant’s registered marks, whether as part of a domain name or otherwise. ...
2004-04-13 - Case Details
ZeBo Limited, NAF Case No. FA0112000102973 (February 5, 2002);
Sony Corporation v. Times Vision, Ltd., NAF Case No. FA0009000095686
(March 9, 2001); cf. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2004-04-15 - Case Details
See Pomellato S.p.A. v. Tonetti, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0493, Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, WIPO
Case No. D2000-1409. The contention is that the generic top-level domain
“.com” because such gTLD has no legal significance. ...
2006-08-24 - Case Details
Vladimir Federov,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0639, Laure Pester (Lorie) and Sony Music Entertainment France SA v. Movie Name,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0312; see also paragraph 3.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions). ...
2008-06-12 - Case Details
Também o Especialista Único conclui que, indubitavelmete, o contestado nome de domínio reproduz, na íntegra, a marca DASLU do Reclamante
Acresce, ainda, que o Examinador Único conclui que a adição do sufixo constituído pela expressão “com” ao nome de domínio não é, de modo algum suficiente, para diferenciar ou distinguir o nome de domínio disputado em relação às marcas DASLU registadas pelo Reclamante, tal como já ficou demonstrado e decidido no caso precedente Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. sony.net,
Caso OMPI No. D2000-1074
Por tudo isto o Especialista Único conclui que o disputado nome de domínio é idêntico e/ou similar às marcas da Reclamante e,
Assim, o Especialista Único é levado a concluir que o Reclamante provou, devidamente, o requerido pelo parágrafo 4(a) (i) da Política.
...
2007-06-14 - 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. ...
2007-09-13 - Case Details
Complainant further submits that given that the disputed domain name is completely comprised of Complainant's distinctive mark, any active use of the disputed domain name by Respondent would create a false impression that Respondent and Complainant were connected. See, Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1409 (finding that bad faith registration and use where 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"); Phat Fashions v. ...
2015-03-20 - Case Details
The Complainant’s clients include major global businesses such as Sony Pictures, Thomson Reuters, 20th Century Fox, and Kendall-Jackson. The Complainant contends that it has continuously used its DATASERV service mark and trade name in connection with accounts payable automation and related services since 1994. ...
2012-10-08 - Case Details
诉Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale, WIPO 案件编号D2000-0662；Oakley, Inc. 诉 Zhang Bao,WIPO 案件编号D2010-2289；索尼株式会社(Sony Corporation) 诉 Qin Sonyhk, WIPO案件编号D2013-0087。
通常被投诉人使用他人的整个商标并添以描述性或非可区分性词汇的，并不因此避免混淆性相似的认定。参见The Argento Wine Company Limited 诉 Argento Beijing Trading Company, WIPO 案件编号D2009-0610；General Electric Company 诉 CPIC NET and Hussain Syed, WIPO 案件编号D2001-0087；及PCCW-HKT DataCom Services Limited 诉 Yingke, HKIAC案件编号HK-0500065。
...
2014-07-25 - Case Details
De hecho, esta interpretación coincide con la que se ha dado en numerosas decisiones adoptadas con anterioridad como, por ejemplo, Sony Kabushiki Kaisha c. Sony.net,
Caso OMPI No. D2000-1074; Tetra Banka, Akciová Spolo Nos c. US WARE, Inc.,
Caso OMPI No. ...
2014-08-28 - Case Details
参见Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.诉 Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale, WIPO 案件编号D2000-0662；Oakley, Inc.诉 Zhang Bao,WIPO 案件编号D2010-2289；索尼株式会社(Sony Corporation) 诉 Qin Sonyhk,WIPO案件编号D2013-0087。
通常被投诉人使用他人的整个商标并添以描述性或非可区分性词汇的，并不因此避免混淆性相似的认定。参见The Argento Wine Company Limited 诉 Argento Beijing Trading Company, WIPO 案件编号D2009-0610；General Electric Company诉 CPIC NET and Hussain Syed, WIPO 案件编号D2001-0087。
...
2014-07-29 - Case Details
The Respondent has registered variations
of other famous trademarks, trade names, and celebrity names such as "Disney",
"Sony", "Blue Mountain Arts", "Hewlett-Packard",
"National Car Rental", "Britney Spears", "Salma Hayek",
"Oprah Winfrey", "Jennifer Lopez", "Star Wars",
"Mayo Clinic", "Michael Jordan", "Ally McBeal",
"Ricky Martin", "USA Today", "Taco Bell", "Austin
Powers", "Microsoft", and "Playboy". ...
2001-06-08 - 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 (November 28, 2000). 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. ...
2005-02-25 - Case Details
Grokster & others (US 9th Cir., August 19, 2004), Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (US Supreme Court) and CBS Songs v. Amstrad Consumer Electronics [1988] RPC 567 (UK House of Lords). ...
2008-06-12 - 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. ...
2007-09-21 - Case Details
广州花都凯迪威电子厂还同时销售其他知名厂家的假冒商品。比如上述、“S①rly”的商品标识 模仿了日本知名厂家SONY 的商品，和“Pariascriio”一样，“S①rly”中将小写的r与l变更其文字大小，刻意模仿了小写字母n。
此网络购物网站中显示的电话以及传真号码与<松下电子.net>的域名查询数据库(WhoIs)信息中显示联系人方式相同。
...
2011-11-01 - Case Details
Andrew Vierling,
WIPO Case No. D2010-1913; and LEGO Juris A/S v. Sony Laksono, N/A / PrivacyProtect.org,
WIPO Case No. D2011-2268.
In this case, the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is not bona fide within the meaning of Policy paragraph 4(c)(i) because:
- Each disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered LEGO trademark, which is distinctive and specific to the Complainant in connection with toys and other products and has been used for many years...
2016-09-07 - Case Details
site are Apple, Colgate-Palmolive, Disney, The Gap, Honda, IBM, Lego, Microsoft, Procter & Gamble, Sony, Swatch, Toshiba, and Visa.
Nearly all of Yahoo!’s current Internet services are offered to the public free of charge, its income being primarily derived from the sale of advertising and co-branding or sponsorship agreements with other companies. ...
2001-02-01 - Case Details