Complainant
The Complainant makes the following contentions:
(i) that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's HARMONI Mark;
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights nor any legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element the Complainant must have trade or service mark rights and the Domain Name must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade or service mark.
...
2018-01-03 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant considers the Disputed Domain Names to be confusingly similar to trademarks in which it claims to have rights. Complainant further claims that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names. ...The Panel will deal with each of these requirements in turn.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element, Complainant must first establish that there is a trademark or service mark in which it has rights. ...
2017-08-03 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts that disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's INTESA SANPAOLO trademark as it incorporates the Complainant's trademark in its entirety and that the addition of the numbers "31903" does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the included mark as the number is used by the Complainant to identify its online banking services for the enterprises.
...For the foregoing reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name <31903intesasanpaolo.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark INTESA SANPAOLO, in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2018-05-15 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
A. Complainant
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant CARREFOUR trade mark. It reproduces the Complainant's trade mark, which previous panels in earlier UDRP cases have considered to be well known (see e.g. ...For the sake of ensuring expediency in the proceeding, the Panel determines that English will apply in this proceeding.
6.2. Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established it has rights in the mark CARREFOUR. This mark has been incorporated in its entirety in the disputed domain name and easily identifiable. ...
2018-01-29 - Case Details
They contend that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to their trademarks. They further contend that the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD") “.com” is insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainants have provided evidence of their International and European Union registrations for SOFITEL since 2005 and subsequently, their International and United States registrations for MERCURE since 1973. ...
2020-03-31 - Case Details
This also follows from article 22 (10) of the Regulation which states that failure of any of the parties involved in an ADR procedure to respond within the given deadlines or appear to a panel hearing may be considered as grounds to accept the claims of the counterparty.
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 Complainant sufficiently proved to have rights in the Trademark and the Trade Name.
...Therefore, the Panel finds the Domain Name to be confusingly similar and in fact identical to a name in which the Complainant has established a satisfactory right within the meaning of Article 21(1) of the Regulation and Paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(i) of the ADR Rules.
...
2020-03-31 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence presented, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the BUREAU VERITAS mark.
...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant has satisfied the first element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2021-05-14 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it has registered trademark rights in the mark REBOXED. ...The relevant inquiry examines whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights at the time of the Complaint: WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.1.3 (emphasis added). ...
2021-06-09 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that Complainant has common law rights in the unregistered trademark CLARE LOCKE through use and acquired distinctiveness demonstrated in the record. ...The Panel also concludes that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to that mark. The Domain Name entirely incorporates the CLARE LOCKE trademark – minus the “e” at the end of “LOCKE”. ...
2021-11-11 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark; the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and the disputed domain names have been registered and are 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.
...
2021-09-20 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant makes the following contentions:
(i) that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s NOPPIES Mark;
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights nor any legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...page 3
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element the Complainant must have trade or service mark rights and the Domain Name must
be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade or service mark.
...
2022-11-02 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Trade Marks, the
Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, and the
disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
...https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 5
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Marks acquired through use and registration.
...
2022-08-03 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Marks. In particular, VIKING ARM is present in the disputed domain name in its entirety, and neither the addition of the letter “s” nor the presence of a hyphen in the disputed domain name serves to eliminate the confusion that this causes. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
On the evidence provided by the Complainant, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has rights in the Marks1. ...
2022-02-16 - Case Details
Complainant
The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SAP trademark. The disputed domain names incorporate the SAP trademark in its entirety as their dominant element and combine them with words that describe the Complainant’s SAP courses.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the SAP mark.
...
2020-12-10 - Case Details
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 4
6.2 Substantive Issues
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...
2024-11-26 - Case Details
Furthermore, the lowercase letters “a” and “q” are visually very similar in certain
fonts. The addition of the generic TLD (“gTLD”) “.com” should be disregarded. Therefore, the Domain
Name is confusingly similar to the ALFA LAVAL trademark, in which the Complainant has rights.
...Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2025-01-14 - Case Details
For the evaluation of this case, the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and, where appropriate,
will decide consistent with the consensus views stated therein.
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...
2024-12-26 - Case Details
The Respondent contends that the word “AdBlue” has become a generic term in Morocco, adding that the
Complainant’s enforcement of its trademark in a country where no officially licensed products are sold raises
concerns about fair competition.
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...
2024-11-18 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant submits that:
i. the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark 100% in which the Complainant has prior rights;
ii. on the evidence adduced by the Complainant the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name;
iii. on the evidence the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent.
...The Panel therefore finds that is confusingly similar to the trade mark 100% in which the Complainant has registered rights within Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2021-07-13 - Case Details
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules directs the Panel to decide the complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant’s United States trademark application for GATEWAYFIBER is pending at the date of this decision. ...The Panel accordingly concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s GATEWAY FIBER trademark, disregarding the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”.
...
2021-08-09 - Case Details