A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that the Complainant has rights in the marks BFORBANK.
The Panel also finds the disputed domain name to be identical to the Complainant’s trademark.
...The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as ...
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith...
2024-10-21 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the mark BNY through registration and use demonstrated in
the record. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-10-09 - Case Details
page 3
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-11-05 - Case Details
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has
rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-10-15 - Case Details
The entirety of the Trade Mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed
domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0,
section 1.7.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-10-11 - Case Details
It consists of a common,
obvious or intentional misspelling of the Complainant’s Trade Mark. Accordingly, the disputed domain name
is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 1.7 and
1.9.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-10-11 - Case Details
Respondent
5.4 The Respondent did not reply to the Complainants’ contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.1 It is generally accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests and Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-11-28 - Case Details
These trademarks
are fully incorporated into the disputed domain name and the latter is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s marks.
Furthermore, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the
disputed domain name. ...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2024-11-28 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that:
- The Trade Mark is highly distinctive. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade
Mark. The disputed domain name reproduces the Trade Mark in its entirety. ...The onus of providing these elements is on the Complainant.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2024-11-28 - Case Details
page 3
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the
Complainant’s trademark and the Domain Name. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-11-15 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it is the owner of registered trademark rights in the mark ADVANIA.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith...
2024-11-14 - Case Details
page 3
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-11-13 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade
Mark; the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and the
disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Substantive Elements of the Policy
The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark acquired through use and registration.
...
2022-12-27 - Case Details
page 3
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-08-07 - Case Details
In view of the above, the Panel determines that the disputed domain names shall be consolidated under this
proceeding in accordance with paragraphs 3(c) and 10(e) of the Rules.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate its registered rights in the SWIRE
trademark.
The SWIRE trademark is wholly reproduced in the disputed domain names.
A domain name is “identical or confusingly similar” to a trademark for the purposes of the Policy when the
domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of other terms in the
domain name (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2022-09-14 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed the Complainant must satisfy the Panel that:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the
Complainant has rights;
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusing similar to the Complainant’s Mark. ...
2022-09-20 - Case Details
Substantive Elements of the Policy
The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark acquired through use and registration.
...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 4
B. ...
2022-10-26 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated with supporting evidence that it has rights to the trademark SAP. ...According to WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition
(“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7, a domain name is considered confusingly similar to a trademark if it
“incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is
recognizable in the domain name”. ...
2022-11-16 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar to a name in respect of which a right or rights are recognized or
established by national law of a Member State and/or European Union law
The Panel finds that the Complainant is the owner of the International Trademark EDMOND DE
ROTHSCHILD, designating the European Union, and that the disputed domain name is identical to
trademark EDMOND DE ROTHSCHILD.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar to a name in respect of which a right or rights are recognized or established by national law of a Member State and/or European Union law
B. ...
2022-11-15 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade
Mark; the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and the
disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Discussion and Findings
The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark acquired through use and registration.
...
2022-11-08 - Case Details