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
see Guerlain SA v Peikang (WIPO
Case No D2000-0055), and Sony Corporation v Sin, Eonmok (WIPO
Case No D2000-1007)).
The Complainant says that the domain name registered by the Respondent in this case, is identical with its registered trademark and trade name "Lufthansa".
...
2002-01-10 - 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
See Pomellato S.p.A. v.
Tonetti, WIPO Case No. D2000-0493,
Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, WIPO
Case No. D2000-1409.
(ii) Rights or Legitimate Interests
According to Complainant, Respondent cannot demonstrate any legitimate interest in the Domain Names. ...
2005-12-12 - Case Details
The Respondent has also registered other domain names including famous brands such as SHARP, SONY, SAMSUNG, GARMIN to name a few (see WhoIs for: , , , and ). ...
2012-03-07 - Case Details
Furthermore, the Respondent has registered several domain names which feature well-known trademarks such as SONY, SEIKO or CLASH OF CLANS. It appears, therefore, that the Respondent is engaged in a pattern of registering domain names that are confusingly similar to trademarks in which it has no rights. ...
2016-05-04 - Case Details
MustNeed.com, WIPO
Case No. D2004-0025 (March 30, 2004) and Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. sony.net,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1074 (November 28, 2000).
Given this approach, the Complainant contends that the Respondent cannot meet
its burden to demonstrate any legitimate rights to the domain name. ...
2004-06-29 - Case Details
Among the companies that have advertised their products or services on the Yahoo
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. ...
2001-06-29 - Case Details
Among the companies that have advertised their
products or services on the Complainant’s site are Apple, Colgate-Palmolive,
Disney, The Gap, Hilton Hotels, Honda, IBM, Lego, Microsoft, Procter & Gamble,
Seagrams, Sony, Swatch, Target Stores, Toshiba and Visa.
The Complainant also licenses the
YAHOO! mark for use on merchandise such as clothing, hats, computer equipment,
toy cars, watches, writing instruments, posters, watches, clocks, duffel bags,
baseballs, the "Yahoo! ...
2002-07-08 - Case Details
Second Orbit Communications Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0867 (October 4, 2000);
Sony Corporation v. Inja, WIPO Case
No. D2000-1409 (December 9, 2000); Doctor.Ing.h.c. F. Porsche AG v. ...
2003-01-24 - Case Details
En tal virtud, no puede utilizarlas las marcas en su beneficio
y menos apropiarse de ellas, mediante el registro de los Nombres de Dominio,
que efectúa por el encargo de el Promovente, para despojarlo después, bajo la
justificación de un conflicto contractual. Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. sony.net,
Decisión OMPI D2000-1074 o Telstra
Corporation Limited v. Peter Yellowees, Decisión
OMPI D2002-0638 (no hay justificación posible para elegir un nombre de dominio
cuando se conocen los derechos); Tetra Banka, Akciová Spolo Nos v. ...
2004-10-22 - Case Details
Second Orbit Communications Inc., WIPO
Case No. D2000-0867 (October 4, 2000); Sony Corporation v. Inja, WIPO
Case No. D2000-1409 (December 9, 2000); Doctor.Ing.h.c. F. Porsche AG v.
...
2002-10-18 - Case Details
vi) Any attempt to actively use any of the Domain Names would inevitably lead to a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website among Internet users, who would inevitably be led to believe that such a website would be owned by, controlled by, established by, or in some way associated with, the Complainant (citing Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1409).
(vii) In summary, taking account of the number of the Domain Names, the fame of the reflected trade mark T-MOBILE, and the lack of any substantive response from the Respondent, it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the Domain Names by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as by being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trade mark law.
...
2008-05-02 - Case Details
Respondents have registered variations of the following trademarks, trade names, and celebrity names as domain names: 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." ...
2001-09-25 - Case Details
Common examples of familiar trade names are Ericsson, General Motors, Holiday Inn, Lego, Microsoft, Nestlé, Philips, Procter & Gamble and Sony. A trade name may also be registered and separately protected as a trademark, as most of the foregoing examples are."
...
2001-10-15 - Case Details
Second Orbit
Communications Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0867 (October 4, 2000); Sony Corporation
v. Inja, WIPO Case No. D2000-1409 (December 9, 2000); Doctor.Ing.h.c. F. Porsche
AG v. ...
2002-08-22 - Case Details
En tal
virtud, no puede utilizarlas en un nombre de dominio. Sony Kabushiki Kaisha
v. sony.net, WIPO Case D2000-1074
o Telstra Corporation Limited v. Peter Yellowees, WIPO
Case D2002-0638 (no hay justificación posible para elegir un nombre de dominio
cuando se conocen los derechos). ...
2004-06-18 - Case Details
It is evident for this Panel
that the foregoing is applicable in this case.
Following the rationale of the Panels in Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. sony.net,
D2000-1074, and Telstra Corporation
Limited v. Peter Yellowlees, D2002-0638,
there is no obvious possible justification for the selection that Respondent
made of the Domain Name. ...
2004-06-21 - Case Details
The foregoing, in the understanding that paragraph 3(a)(iii)
of the Policy requires the showing of both, registration and use of the Domain
Name in bad faith.
6.5.3.1 Registration in Bad Faith
Following the rationale of the Panels in Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. sony.net,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1074, and Telstra
Corporation Limited v. Peter Yellowlees, WIPO
Case No. ...
2004-05-24 - Case Details
D2000-1628 (Well-known television and film actor, scriptwriter,
and producer of music videos); Celine Dion and Sony Music Entertainment (Canada)
Inc. v. Jeff Burgar operating or carrying on business as Celine Dion Club
WIPO Case No. ...
2001-06-21 - Case Details