Source: https://www.legi-internet.ro/jurisprudenta-it-romania/decizii-ompi/osramro-jurisprudenta-nume-de-domeniuro.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 08:15:49+00:00

Document:
Szynka von Renesse, Germany (hereinafter, the “Complainant”).
Lia Pardau’s Lawyers Cabinet, Romania (hereinafter, the “Respondent”).
details for the administrative, billing, and technical contact.
filed with the Center on August 12, 2005.
Response in English as well.
employs more than 35,000 people.
- International trademark no. 774 581, filed on November 13, 2001.
construction of lighting installations, computer programming, etc.).
numerous evidences of such a notoriety.
top level domain names (ccTLDs).
the Domain Name, has been provided by it.
provides the Respondent with free hosting services.
<prakitker.ro>); Auchan v. Web4COMM SRL Romania, WIPO Case No.
Romania to the corresponding complainants.
before the Center, starting the present proceeding.
clause as foreseen by Article 1 of WIPO’s Center’s Mediation Rules (sic).
had no contractual relationship at all with the Complainant.
applicability of the Policy to this dispute.
“a flagrant violation of my client’s rights”.
not contain any provision relating to arbitration.
by ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers)”.
controversies not specifically relating to domain names.
decisions Beiersdorf AG v. Web4comm Srl Romania, WIPO Case No.
allegations made by the Complainant”.
applicable to this dispute and that the Panel was properly constituted.
“OSRAM” trademarks are identical or confusingly similar.
the “.RO” suffix in the Domain Name.
adopted such an approach (see, in general, New York Insurance Company v.
Abercrombie & Fitch Store, Inc., Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co., Inc. v.
“.RO” domain names, Auchan v. Web4comm Srl Romania, WIPO Case No.
DRO2005-0001; Beiersdorf AG v. Web4comm Srl Romania, WIPO Case No.
has met the first requirement foreseen by the Policy.
the Respondent may be considered as holding said rights or interests.
or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
In the present case, none of the above-mentioned circumstances applies.
do so by the Complainant.
webpage indicating that the website is still under construction.
out by the Policy has been met by the Complainant.
disputed domain name in bad faith.
example, NFL Properties, Inc. et al. v. Rusty Rahe, WIPO Case No.
D2000-0128, Julian Barnes v. Old Barn Studios Limited, WIPO Case No.
PageUp Communications, WIPO Case No. D2003-0602).
under the Policy for identical reasons reinforces this approach.
Romania, WIPO Case No. DRO2005-0003).
connection with the Respondent’s bad faith.
<osram.ro> be transferred to the Complainant.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.