Over 20 “bad faith” domain names have been transferred to Prada in the conclusion to another enormous domain name dispute.
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) ruled on 22 June that 26 domain names were filed in bad faith and were “confusingly similar” to the complainant’s ‘Prada’ and ‘Miu Miu’ trademarks, which were filed in 1978 and 1999 respectively.
The WIPO highlighted that the offending domain names incorporated both trademarks in full, along with geographic terms and numbers, or a combination of the two, and were being used to sell counterfeit Prada products.
All 26 domain names were found to be used in connection with each other, with the assumption one individual, or several working in unison, owned them.
“The panel finds that the disputed domain names were all registered in bad faith and are being used in bad faith”, said Douglas Clark, the case’s sole panelist.
In the hearing on the disputed domain names, Prada argued that the fact that the disputed domain names led to web pages advertising fake Prada and Miu Miu products, meant that it was “highly likely” that the respondents were aware of Prada’s trademark rights when registering the domain names.
The respondents did not reply to Prada’s complaint.
Source: http://ipprotheinternet.com/ipprotheinternetnews/article.php?article_id=4978#.V3pg-DUgfm4
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) ruled on 22 June that 26 domain names were filed in bad faith and were “confusingly similar” to the complainant’s ‘Prada’ and ‘Miu Miu’ trademarks, which were filed in 1978 and 1999 respectively.
The WIPO highlighted that the offending domain names incorporated both trademarks in full, along with geographic terms and numbers, or a combination of the two, and were being used to sell counterfeit Prada products.
All 26 domain names were found to be used in connection with each other, with the assumption one individual, or several working in unison, owned them.
“The panel finds that the disputed domain names were all registered in bad faith and are being used in bad faith”, said Douglas Clark, the case’s sole panelist.
In the hearing on the disputed domain names, Prada argued that the fact that the disputed domain names led to web pages advertising fake Prada and Miu Miu products, meant that it was “highly likely” that the respondents were aware of Prada’s trademark rights when registering the domain names.
The respondents did not reply to Prada’s complaint.
Source: http://ipprotheinternet.com/ipprotheinternetnews/article.php?article_id=4978#.V3pg-DUgfm4
