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
Wick relies heavily (e.g. pp. 3, 13, 14, 19, 25) on the majority opinion in
Bruce Springsteen (Sony) v. Jeff Burgar, WIPO
D2000-1532. Wick quotes or paraphrases extensively from portions of that
decision, especially to the effect that: [8]
" ... the users of the internet do not expect all sites bearing the name of
celebrities or famous historical figures or politicians, to be authorized or
in some way connected with the figure themselves. ... ...
2001-08-21 - Case Details
It is more likely that the purpose is to create an impression of an association with the Complainant (see Sony Kabushiki Kaisha a/t/a Sony Corporation v. A Lista Brasil - Internet Solutions Ltda,
WIPO Case No. ...
2010-01-26 - Case Details
These were said to include, among others, Continental Airlines, Exxon, Ford, HP, Samsung, Sony, and Toshiba. These domain names have also been used to host pay-per-click advertising websites containing links not only to sites featuring the trademark owner’s goods and services, but also to sites of third parties offering goods or services competing with those of the trademark owner. ...
2011-09-20 - Case Details
The Complainant has adduced evidence to demonstrate that the above-named Du Hongxia has also registered domain names of a similar format to the Domain Names, but targeting other well-known brands such as SONY, NIKE and BMW and that according to the Complainant's security systems some of the websites associated with these domain names have been identified as phishing/malware websites.
...
2015-01-12 - 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. ...
2009-08-24 - Case Details
It is evident to
this Panel that the foregoing applies in this case.
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. ...
2004-06-23 - Case Details
The Respondent states that companies such as its former title sponsor Sony Ericsson pay tens of thousands of pounds to be associated with the Respondent’s event. The Respondent states that its official channel on the website “www.youtube.com” was already highly successful and the name “B-Boy TV” had become a recognizable brand associated with the Respondent’s business.
...
2012-12-04 - Case Details
The Complainants' DHL name is not a unique name like “Sony”, or “Nokia”; it is simply an arbitrarily chosen name formed by combining the first letters from the last names of the group's original founders. ...
2009-07-28 - 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.D2001-1184).
...
2004-12-07 - Case Details
Simply because an acronym or domain name is short (such as IBM or NFL or GAP or NAF or SONY or AMEX or INTA or WIPO) does not mean that respondents have an automatic right to register such domain names and use them for PPC parking pages. ...
2012-03-05 - Case Details
In this respect “ge” differs from unusual combinations such as “BP”, “Sony” or “Pepsi” which may more readily be identified as separate elements of a string containing them.
...
2006-09-08 - Case Details
Ban Trọng Tài lưu ý rằng nguyên tắc "đăng ký trước, sở hữu trước" thường không áp dụng cho trường hợp đăng ký tên miền có chứa nhãn hiệu đã đăng ký của các bên thứ ba (Xem, ví dụ: vụ việc giữa Sony Corporation và Domain Admin, Privatewhois.biz,
WIPO Case No. D2017-2341). Ban Trọng Tài cũng không được cung cấp bất kỳ chứng cứ chứng minh, cũng như không tìm thấy cơ sở phát sinh quyền của Bên Bị Khiếu Nại đối với nhãn hiệu của Bên Khiếu Nại chứa trong Các Tên Miền Tranh Chấp.
...
2018-08-31 - Case Details
Ban Trọng Tài lưu ý rằng nguyên tắc "đăng ký trước, sở hữu trước" thường không áp dụng cho trường hợp đăng ký tên miền có chứa nhãn hiệu đã đăng ký của các bên thứ ba (Xem, ví dụ: vụ việc giữa Sony Corporation và Domain Admin, Privatewhois.biz,
WIPO Case No. D2017-2341). Ban Trọng Tài cũng không được cung cấp bất kỳ chứng cứ chứng minh, cũng như không tìm thấy cơ sở phát sinh quyền của Bên Bị Khiếu Nại đối với nhãn hiệu của Bên Khiếu Nại chứa trong Các Tên Miền Tranh Chấp.
...
2018-08-31 - Case Details
The approach to be followed in cases where there has been no actual use of
a domain name, is helpfully discussed in cases such as WIPO Cases D2000-0003
-Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows, and D2000-1074
-Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v sony.net. Nuclear Marshmallows was a
case where there had been no use made of the domain name in issue, and the Panel
had to consider whether there could yet be registration and use of the
domain name in bad faith, under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
...
2002-01-11 - Case Details
此外，在第二次答辩书中，在试图否认其知晓标识的同时，被投诉人说：”我们都知道，日本有许多世界驰名的电器品牌，如”松下(Panasonic)”，”索尼(SONY)”，”先锋(PIONEER)”等等…”。如果他熟知这些日本电器品牌，那他不知道NEC的标识是根本不可信的，因为NEC是最著名的品牌之一。
如果被投诉人诚心想使该网址向中国市场一般地介绍日本电器产品，而不是以吸引熟识NEC及标识的潜在顾客为目标，他完全应当选择一个更能为一般中国消费者理解和使用的，完全由中文文字组成的域名来表达”日本��荨薄�
最后，从2000年5月域名注册至今，被投诉人一直没有使用域名，被投诉人拖延而不使用域名的行为进一步证明被投诉人是恶意注册域名。
...
2002-10-28 - Case Details
此外，在第二次答辩书中，在试图否认其知晓标识的同时，被投
诉人说：”我们都知道，日本有许多世界驰名的电器品牌，如”松下(Panasonic)
”，”索尼(SONY)”，”先锋(PIONEER)”等等…”。如果他熟知这些日本电器
品牌，那他不知道NEC的标识是根本不可信的，因为NEC是 著名的品牌之一。
如果被投诉人诚心想使该网址向中国市场一般地介绍日本电器产品，而不是以吸
引熟识NEC及标识的潜在顾客为目标，他完全应当选择一个更能为一般中国消费
者理解和使用的，完全由中文文字组成的域名来表达”日本電気”。
...
2002-10-28 - Case Details
The wording of paragraph 4(c)
of the Policy appears to envisage the 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 effectively shifts to the respondent to demonstrate that it has some right
or legitimate interest. (See for example the decision in Sony Kabushiki Kaisha
v sony.net; WIPO Case D2000-1074,
where the learned panelist said: "Proving that the Respondent has no rights
or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names requires the Complainant
to prove a negative. ...
2004-01-26 - Case Details