To illustrate assume that an apple grower markets red apples under the term Acme Because the term is generic it would not qualify for full trademark protection at first If however customers immediately recognize Acme apples as the apples produced

share second only to the Apple iPod and are very popular well publicized and critically acclaimed products The Complainant owns United States trademark registration number 3178105 for its SANSA mark covering �digital audio players � The

another bite at the apple only again to have Respondent ignore completely the opportunity provided to it The Panel believes that it is not unreasonable to expect Respondent to makes its case in some form if not in Response to the original

the Domain Name is a play on Apple �s iTunes The Respondent contends that his two-page website designed using FrontPage can hardly be confused with the Complainant He explains that he put photographs of Blackberry phones on the website so that

attract � Sound Unseen Ltd Apple Bottoms LLC and Cornell Haynes p/k/a �Nelly � v Patrick Vanderhorst WIPO Case No D2005-0636 That is what some case precedents have termed as �opportunistic bad faith � Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondée en

la compañía estadounidense Apple Inc se encuentre disponible en España Sin perjuicio de lo anterior la Demandante ha acreditado que tras registrarse el Nombre de Dominio se conectó a un sitio web desde el que se ofrecía públicamente en venta

legitimately have registered apple.com to host a website featuring apples and apple trees but that same pomologist would have run afoul of the Policy by registering that apple.com solely to derive revenue by linking it to websites selling Gateway

Top Name Desktops Gateway HP Apple and More � Moreover in addition to such actual knowledge Respondent had constructive notice of Complainant �s trademark rights in its GATEWAY trademarks by virtue of Complainant �s prior registrations in Great

at one door looking for fresh apples to direct that visitor to the fresh apple seller operating next door It is quite another thing to send a visitor who is looking for a particular named apple seller off to an unrelated business which happens to

the owner of the trademark APPLE in relation to computers cannot prevent use of the word �apple � in relation to apples � The Panel is satisfied that the Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the bartender.com.au domain name The

the owner of the trademark APPLE in relation to computers cannot prevent use of the word �apple � in relation to apples � The Panel is satisfied that the Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the bartender.com.au domain name The

2004 Despite two bites at the apple assuming arguendo that the Panel were to consider the contents of Complainant s Additional Submission as evidence there is simply insufficient evidence before the Panel for it to come to the conclusion that

to have a �second bite at the apple � Trademark rights The Respondent contends that the only distinction between the prior case and this Complaint is the Complainant �s newly acquired trademark registration The Respondent claims that the trademark

made under the UDRP see e.g Apple Computer Inc v DomainHouse.com Inc WIPO Case No D2000-0341 N.C.P Marketing Group v Entredomains WIPO Case No D2000-0387 Offering the domain name at a price higher than the out-of-pocket expenses of registration

free to use the domain name apple.com in connection with computers because the word apple is the name of a fruit The proposition needs only to be stated to be seen as untenable The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate

18 2006 Sound Unseen Ltd Apple Bottoms LLC and Cornell Haynes p/k/a �Nelly � v Patrick Vanderhorst WIPO Case No D2005-0636 August 18 2005 True Blue Productions Inc v Chris Hoffman WIPO Case No D2004-0930 December 22 2004 AT&T Corp v Roman

asserted that accessories for Apple s iPod were created with the purpose of disrupting Apple s iPod sales an absurd result Finally Respondent has not registered the youtubex.com domain name to prevent Complainant from using its mark Respondent has

Tribes of Washington v Apple Investment Patrick Johnson Case No D2007-1106 1 The Parties Complainant is The Tulalip Tribes of Washington �Complainant � or the �Tribe � a federally recognized Indian Tribe located in Tulalip State of

EA Mobile for mobile phones Apple iPods PDAs THQ Inc for certain videogame consoles and Radica Ltd for electronic handheld games See paragraph 8 of the Rogers Declaration Currently Complainant has registered trademarks in the term TETRIS in the

18 2006 Sound Unseen Ltd Apple Bottoms LLC and Cornell Haynes p/k/a �Nelly � v Patrick Vanderhorst WIPO Case No D2005-0636 August 18 2005 and True Blue Productions Inc v Chris Hoffman WIPO Case No D2004-0930 December 22 2004 Furthermore the