See The Coryn Group Inc Apple Vacations West v John Meara aka Pat Cavanaugh WIPO Case No D2003-0690 where the use of dictionary words in the domain names bookapple.com bookapplecamp.com and bookapplegrant.com were found to be confusingly

and services concerning Apple Inc Complainant has used its TUAW mark for this purpose since 2004 Complainant promotes both marks extensively on its many different webpages such as aol.com Complainant operates websites resolving from both

arbitration forum DECISION Apple Inc v Daniel Bijan Claim Number FA0911001294886 PARTIES Complainant is Apple Inc Complainant represented by Georges Nahitchevansky of Kilpatrick Stockton LLP New York USA Respondent is Daniel Bijan Respondent

ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Apple Inc v Daniel Bijan Claim Number FA0911001295941 PARTIES Complainant is Apple Inc Complainant represented by Georges Nahitchevansky of Kilpatrick Stockton LLP California USA Respondent is Daniel Bijan Respondent

website which also links to Apple iTunes online music store where customers can purchase the same recordings as downloadable MP3 files G.E Entertainment also arranges and promotes live appearances by these artists The Complainant discovered the

the owner of the trademark APPLE in relation to computers cannot prevent use of the word apple in relation to apples However in the instant case the term VAGALUME is not descriptive of the services covered by the mark and the trademark is thus

arbitration forum DECISION APPLE INC v Fusion Media Ltd Claim Number FA0910001288071 PARTIES Complainant is APPLE INC Complainant represented by Anthony J Malutta of Townsend and Townsend and Crew LLP California USA Respondent is Fusion Media

N DEL GRUPO DE EXPERTOS Apple Inc v Patrick Deese Caso No DMX2009-0016 1 Las Partes El Promovente es Apple Inc con domicilio en Cupertino Califorina Estados Unidos de América representada por Arochi Marroquín & Lindner S.C México El

in the iTunes App Store of Apple Inc The Complainant owns German trademark registration No 30 2008 045 973 for PROJECT.ME This trademark registration was entered in the German trademark Register on October 7 2008 following an application made on

mark citing Sound Unseen Ltd Apple Bottoms LLC and Cornell Haynes p/k/a Nelly v Patrick Vanderhorst WIPO Case No D2005-0636 vi The Respondent cannot argue that it has been commonly known by the Domain Name The Respondent did promote a service

see The Coryn Group Inc Apple Vacations West Inc v V.S International WIPO Case No D2003-0664 While gaining revenue from sponsored advertisements is not the only function of the website at the disputed domain name the Respondent appears to be

to the fact that although Apple is a well-known brand name and the translation into Turkish is elma their domain name in Turkey is apple.com.tr and there is a company in Turkey named Elma Computers and their domain name is elma.com.tr evidence

Privacy / Tom Hampson of Apple Valley Minnesota United States of America 2 The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name nortonpeskett.com is registered with eNom Inc 3 Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO

confusingly similar see also Apple Corps Ltd v Gods-Domains.com FA 98464 Nat Arb Forum Sept 25 2001 finding that the respondent s i-beatles.com domain name was confusingly similar to the complainants BEATLES mark because i t has been repeatedly

Berry These include Can the Apple bite the Berry on MondayNote Berry berry good to me PDA making a cultural impact in BusinessWeek apparently originating from American News Aberdeen S.D BlackBerry Bold 9000 the first 3G packin Berry on BlackBerry

instance the famous trademark APPLE includes only the word apple which dictionary.com defines as the usually round red or yellow edible fruit of a small tree APPLE is generic for apples but arbitrary for computers Whether a trademark is generic

4 c see The Coryn Group Inc Apple Vacations West Inc v V.S International WIPO Case No D2003-0664 The Complainant has established a strong prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names and

have a right to a domain name apple if it uses it for a site for apples but not if the site is aimed at selling computers or pornography However If a respondent is using a generic word to describe his product/business or to profit from the generic

not central to the site Apple Inc first sought to acquire the Respondent disputed domain names in February 2008 Prior to this date the Complainant or Apple Inc never challenged the Respondent rights or legitimate interests Rather other

anyone can use the word apple to refer to the specific fruit but APPLE when applied to computers is a protectible trademark In this instance others may refer to the word of faith or words of faith in a descriptive sense but not to Complainant