UDRP Procedures domain name infringement; Typosquatting - LOI calls on LOIKIDZ.NL

In proceedings before the WIPO, LOI successfully claimed the domain name LOIKIDZ.NL. The infringer was a notorious typosquatter that had been convicted of similar cases fourteen times already in the past. Under  the name LOIKIDZZ and using the website LOIKIDZZ.NL  LOI provides courses, especially for children. Given the success of this new label, there are always parties that want to profit from it. Most often by registering a very similar domain name in order to generate sponsored links (pay per clicks).  

LOI was not the only sponsored link on LOIKIDZ.NL. Its competitors also had sponsored links on the site as well. That way the owner of the  website earned a buck from all of them.
The WIPO arbitration panel, however, did not see any good coming from practices such like these. LOI won the case based on their trademark. Opponent was clearly in bad faith by offering a pay per click site that had a domain name which was a clear typo. The domain name registration was transferred to LOI
 

domain-names



Latest news
Rituals vs. The Body Shop: Battle of the Brands
The Bulldog rightly claims damages from Red Bull
Trademark Escobar parfum contrary to public order
Abcor team in World Trademark Review 1000
Louis Keijzer passes BBMM exam with flying colours
Our Clients
Follow Abcor
claimant
defendant
claimant
defendant

IP quiz Trademarks

Puma is one of the bigger sports and lifestyle brands in the world. The core-business is the design, development and sale of (sports) shoes, (sports) clothing and accessories. In 1960, Puma registered an international trademark for a device designed in 1958: the formstrip. Since then, Puma has registered approximately 90 formstrip trademarks with validity in the Benelux or the European Union. Puma claims that this is a serial mark. Monshoe is a wholesaler of women's shoes and related products. The company designs and develops Monshoe shoes which it largely markets itself. Monshoe sells its women's shoes under the brands Shoecolate and Pearlz. The shoe Shoecolate is offered in various colour combinations. Puma claims that Monshoe infringes its well-known formstrip trademark. Monshoe contradicts this and states that the average consumer will not perceive the device of Monshoe on the sneakers as a trademark. And if the public will recognize a trademark in the decoration, it will not make the connection to Puma. According to Monshoe, the formstrip logo is not a well-known trademark within the meaning of the BVIE and the UMVo. There is no likelihood of confusion because the sign does not or hardly evoke any association with Puma among the public. In light of the above, who is right? Does this constitute decorative use or linking to a well-known trademark?