Category: RDNH

The WIPO domain name dispute case D2017-1458, resolved on October 20, 2017, involved the domain name “vallila.com.” The Complainant was Oy Vallila Interior Ab, and the Respondent was Linkz Internet Services. The panel, consisting of Warwick A. Rothnie (Presiding), Johan Sjöbeck, and Adam Taylor, ultimately denied the complaint. This decision in the case is significant…

The WIPO domain name dispute case D2017-1154, resolved on August 1, 2017, involved the domain name “playtechla.com.” The Complainant was Playtech Software Limited, and the Respondent was Diego Torres of Play Technologies S.A.S. The sole panelist for the case was Nicholas Smith. In this case, Playtech Software Limited alleged that the domain name was confusingly…

The WIPO domain name dispute case D2017-0756, adjudicated on June 28, 2017, revolved around the domain names “dermarose.com,” “dermarose.info,” “dermarose.net,” and “dermarose.org.” The complainant was Brand Development Corp., and the respondent was Zora Hajali. In this case, the complainant, Brand Development Corp., alleged that the domain names were confusingly similar to their trademark “DERMAROSE,” which…

The WIPO domain name dispute case D2017-0178, decided on May 15, 2017, involved the domain name “airzone.com.” The complainant was CORPORACION EMPRESARIAL ALTRA S.L. from Spain, and the respondent was Development Services, Telepathy, Inc. from the United States. The complainant, a company dedicated to smart air conditioning, alleged that the domain name was identical to…

In the WIPO domain name dispute case D2016-1624, decided on December 5, 2016, the dispute revolved around the domain name “careflight.org.” The complainant was Careflight Australia Limited, and the respondent was Domain Admin, Privacy Protection Service INC d/b/a PrivacyProtect.org / CareFlight Australia Limited. The case was notable for its internal complexities involving the shareholders of…

In WIPO case D2016-1175, decided on September 27, 2016, the dispute involved the domain name “bravesoul.com.” The complainant was Whispering Smith Limited, and the respondent was Domain Administrator, Tfourh, LLC. The complainant argued that the domain name was identical to their registered trademark “BRAVE SOUL.” However, the domain name was registered before the trademark’s existence,…

The WIPO domain name dispute case D2016-0653, resolved on June 1, 2016, was between Patricks Universal Export Pty Ltd., an Australian company, and David Greenblatt from the United States. The domain name in question was “patricks.com.” Patricks Universal Export, incorporated in 2010 and trading under “Patricks,” claimed rights in the PATRICKS trademark, primarily for hair…

In the WIPO domain name dispute case D2016-0286, decided on March 29, 2016, the controversy centered around the domain name “eyetube.com.” The complainant in this case was Bryn Mawr Communications, LLC, while the respondent was Linkz Internet Services. The panelists presiding over the case were Michael A. Albert, Douglas M. Isenberg, and William R. Towns.…

Case No. D2018-2647 In the domain name dispute case D2018-2647, TENICA and Associates LLC, a Virginia-based company providing government services and consulting in IT and national defense, contested the ownership of the domain name ‘tenica.com’. The respondent was identified as Privacydotlink Customer 2326444, located in the Cayman Islands, and Kwangpyo Kim of MEDIABLUE INC, South…

The Complainant argued that their long history and use of “INDIAN HOTELS” since 1902 established their rights in the term, and that the Respondent’s use was misleading and dilutive. The Respondent countered that “indianhotels” was generic, not exclusively associated with the Complainant, and used legitimately for promoting hotel bookings in India. Ultimately, the WIPO Panel…