Sociology Index

Domain Name Disputes Case Law

Domain Name Disputes

CPP, Inc. v. Virtual Sky - WIPO Domain Name Dispute Decision D2006-0201.

Deutsche Post AG v. NJDomains - WIPO Domain Name Decision D2006-0001.

Diageo North America, Inc. dba The 7 Crown Distilling Company v. ZJ - WIPO Domain Name Dispute Decision D2006-0210.

Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Limited v. Maria Stephen - WIPO Domain Name Decision D2006-0152.
Tata Sons Limited v. tataconnect - WIPO Domain Name Decision D2006-0572
Tom Cruise v. Network Operations Center, Alberta Hot Rods - WIPO Domain Name Dispute Decision D2006-0560

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Kani - WIPO Domain Name Decision D2006-0032
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Kuchora, Kal - WIPO Domain Name Dispute Decision D2006-0033
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Terry Davies - WIPO Domain Name Decision D2006-0031

Yahoo! Inc. v. Akash Arora - Plaintiff seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendants, their partners, servants and agents from operating any business and/or selling, offering for sale, advertising and in any manner dealing in any service or goods on the Internet or otherwise under the trademark/domain name 'Yahooindia.Com' 1999 Delhi High Court, India. Domain Name Dispute Decision

Manish Vij & others v. Indra Chugh & others - Plaintiffs instituted the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from operating any business, making, selling/transferring, offering for sale, advertising and in any other manner dealing with the goods or services using domain name '' or any other combination thereof, as a website on the internet, identical with or descriptively similar to plaintiffs trade name / domain name ''.2002 Delhi High Court, India. Domain Name Dispute Decision

Online Indian Captial Co. Pvt. v. Dimensions Corporate - Suit was filed seeking to restrain the defendant permanently from using the website under the name of WWW.MUTUALFUNDSINDIA.COM or in any other identical name, inter alia, alleging that plaintiff No. 2 acquired the proprietary rights of WWW.MUTUALFUNDSINDIA.COM and assigned it in favour of plaintiff No. 1 Company, Website WWW.MUTUALFUNDSINDIA.COM was created on 5th May, 1999. It is alleged that this website provides most comprehensive data on mutual funds. 2000 Delhi High Court, India. Domain Name Dispute Decision

The travel and tourism company Cox & Kings registered the brand name and the ad-line of the company as domain names. Cox & Kings was organising group package holidays under the brand Duniya Dekho and introduced the base line, 'Add More To Your World,' and featured it as an integral part of most of their advertisements. The Company had applied for the registration of a trademark with the words Duniya Dekho, Cox and Kings.
The domain names and were registered by the Respondent who offered to sell the domain names for valuable consideration.
The Complainant, Cox & Kings filed a case before the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) and sought transfer of the above domain names.

Cap Gemini v. Manila Industries Inc., “Cap Gemini” - WIPO Domain Name Decision D2006-0027 Domain Name Dispute Decision

This case refers to a large number of WIPO cases:

“The essence of the Internet is its world wide access” and that therefore “the propriety of a domain name registration may be questioned by comparing it to a trade mark registered in any country” (Thaigem Global Marketing Limited v. Sanchai Aree, WIPO Case No. D2002-0358).
Confusing similarity depends on the similarity of sound, appearance and idea suggested by the trademark and the domain name (Sharman License Holdings, Limited v., WIPO Case No. D2004-0713).
“Typosquatting”, which arises where the domain name is a slight alphabetical variation of a registered trademark, the panels have found the circumstances of “typosquatting” to constitute confusing similarity (Deutsche Bank AG v. New York TV Tickets Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-1314 and Playboy Enterprises v. Movie Name Company, WIPO Case No. D2001-1201).
The practice of “typosquatting”, that is, registering a domain name with a slight alphabetical variation from a registered trademark, has been found to constitute confusing similarity. See Pfizer Inc. v., WIPO Case No. D2005-0299 (finding that the misspelling of the complainant’s name by omission of a letter amounted to confusing similarity).
Misspelling of a complainant’s name and trademark such as the omission of a letter amounts to confusing similarity (Pfizer Inc. v., WIPO Case No. D2005-0299). In the Pfizer case, the domain name <> was found to be identical to Pfizer Inc.’s trademarks, except for the omission of an “i”.
The fact that the CAP GEMINI trademarks are registered in France, in the European Community and in the United States of America enables the Complainant to question the propriety of the <> domain name which was registered in the United States of America.
A bona fide offering of goods or services requires, at a minimum, that the Respondent must use the site to sell only the trademarked goods; otherwise, it could be using the trademark to bait Internet users and then switch them to other goods (Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No D2001-0903).
The site must accurately disclose the registrant’s relationship with the trademark owner; it may not, for example, falsely suggest that it is the trademark owner, or that the website is the official site (Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No D2001-0903).
where there is no evidence that the Complainant authorized the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademark, these circumstances are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing by the Complainant of absence of rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name on the part of the Respondent (Casio Keisanki Kabushiki Kaisha (Casio Computer Co., Ltd.) v.
Jongchan Kim, WIPO Case No. D2003-0400). even where a user who arrives at the site may promptly conclude that it is not what he or she was originally looking for, a respondent has already succeeded in its purpose of using the trademark to attract the user with a view to commercial gain.
(National Football League Properties, Inc. and Chargers Football Company v. One Sex Entertainment Co., a/k/a, WIPO Case No. D2000-0118).
The “.com” suffix denoting second-level domain status in the Respondent’s domain name does not affect the fact that the name is identical to the Complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). See Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, WIPO Case No. D2000-0429 (finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar).
Indeed, there is a confusing similarity between the <> domain name and the CAP GEMINI trademarks visually, phonetically and conceptually.
Decision: In accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name, <>, be transferred to the Complainant. - Jonas Gulliksson, Sole Panelist. Dated: May 16, 2006.