discussion of this issue in Apple Inc v Private Whois Service WIPO Case No D2011-0929 which involved a request to add four additional domain names after the commencement of the proceeding In that case the panel reached the following conclusion In

some very well known ones e.g Apple The Limited consist entirely of common words or phrases Second while Louis may be a common name and XIII a straightforward Roman numeral the combination of the two is by no means common or generic 3 Third to the

que incorpore el término apple si es que lo usa en relación con un portal genuinamente dedicado a las manzanas pero no si el portal tiene por objeto vender computadoras o reproductores MP3 por ejemplo u otro propósito inapropiado La excusa

accessories since 1976 using Apple as both the company name and a brand name Three of the Domain Names contain apple the other two respectively iphone and icloud APPLE IPHONE and ICLOUD and are all trademarks registered to the Complainant in the

as phone brands including HTC Apple and Blackberry This statement is supported by a web page printout 5 Parties Contentions A Complainant Complainant contends in relevant part as follows The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the

software products including Apple s Logic software The disputed domain name was registered on February 23 2006 together with 13 other domain names consisting of keyboard prefixed by the name of the relevant software product for which the

WIPO Case No D2013-1427 Apple Inc v Stanley Pace a.k.a Jordan Smith Chris Carter sunhei.org Keith Besterson Shahamat Staci Michele and Courtney Culbertson and Fundacion Private Whois WIPO Case No D2013-1313 Assa Abloy AB v Fundacion Private

mobile OS in use e.g iOS from Apple Inc Android from Google Inc Windows Phone from Microsoft Corporation BlackBerry OS and BlackBerry 10 from Research in Motion Bada from Samsung Firefox OS by Mozilla and others Each device requires applications

business name and trademark APPLE DENTAL MILTON Complainant at one point owned the appledentalmilton.com domain name and used the disputed domain name in connection with all methods of advertising B The appledentalmilton.com domain name is

to repair a variety of Apple products See Complainant s Ex 8 Complainant goes on to say that all of this is proof that Respondent is willfully passing itself off as Complainant in its use of this domain name In Alcon Inc v ARanked the panel

See Textron Innovations Inc v Apple International Inc Ltd / Richard Harper FA 1466330 Nat Arb Forum Dec 28 2012 holding that registration and use of a domain name incorporating Complainant s trademark to sell both Complainant s products and

for Nokia Blackberry and Apple online h tv advertisements for the Rugby World Cup 2007 i publishing its own newspaper and newsletter j exhibiting its products and services at various exhibitions around South Africa k sponsoring the South

host a website that promotes Apple s OS X Server which competes with Complainant s products and such use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name Respondent

Textron Innovations Inc v Apple International Inc Ltd / Richard Harper Claim Number FA1210001466330 PARTIES Complainant is Textron Innovations Inc Complainant represented by David R Haarz of Harness Dickey & Pierce PLC Virginia USA Respondent

Apple Computer Inc v Apple-Computers c/o Marcus Grey FA 535416 Nat Arb Forum Sept 22 2005 finding no bona fide use where Respondent is using the apple-compuers.us domain name to redirect Internet users to a website

of views is discussed in Apple Inc v Fred Bergstrom Lotta Carlsson Georges Chaloux and Marina Bianchi WIPO Case No D2011-1388 In this case each of the disputed domain names incorporates the Complainant s mark in its entirety The disputed

making analogies to the marks APPLE and NIKE which are also surnames Regarding bad faith registration and use the Complainant rebuts various arguments made by the Respondent but admits to initiating the negotiations regarding the potential sale of

well-known marks such as Apple Bing Geek Squad Google Microsoft and Walmart The Respondent s registration of a second domain name containing the YAHOO mark as well as other domain names containing third-party marks is evidence of bad faith

have a right to a domain name apple if it uses it for a genuine site for apples but not if the site is aimed at selling computers or MP3 players for example or an inappropriate other purpose Panels have recognized that mere registration of a domain

of views is discussed in Apple Inc v Fred Bergstrom Lotta Carlsson Georges Chaloux and Marina Bianchi WIPO Case No D2011-1388 In this instance all but one of the disputed domain names incorporate the Complainant s HERMES mark in its entirety