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. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-04-15 - Case Details
Having considered the
Complaint, the Policy, the Rules, the Supplemental Rules and applicable principles of law, the Panel’s
findings on each of the above cited elements are as follows:
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...
2024-04-02 - Case Details
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the three following
elements is satisfied:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant
has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...It is further noted that the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and, where appropriate, will
decide consistent with the consensus views captured therein.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2024-02-29 - 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
According to the ADR Rules, paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(i), the Complainant shall prove that the disputed domain
name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by
the national law of a Member State and/or European Union law.
...Didier Mermet
Case No. DEU2024-0001
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. ...
2024-03-15 - Case Details
The entirety of the BLUM mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed
domain name is confusingly similar to the BLUM 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...
2024-03-15 - Case Details
Having considered the Complaint, the Policy, the
Rules, the Supplemental Rules and applicable principles of law, the Panel’s findings on each of the above
cited elements are as follows:
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...
2024-03-15 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the f irst element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondent
8. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel finds that these circumstances do not confer upon Respondent any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.
...
2024-03-14 - Case Details
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. Accordingly, the disputed domain
name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy.
The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-04-02 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-03-22 - Case Details
Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the
language of the proceeding shall be English.
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...The Panel finds that the entirety of the Trade Mark is reproduced within the disputed domain names.
Accordingly, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Trade Mark for the purposes of the
Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
...
2024-07-30 - Case Details
In these circumstances and for this
limited purpose only, the Panel admits the Complainant’s supplemental filing into the record.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element that the Complainant must establish is that the disputed domain name is identical with, or
confusingly similar to, the Complainant’s trademark rights.
...Factual Background
5. Discussion and Findings
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
6. Decision...
2024-07-26 - Case Details
In
view of the Panel, the Complainant has established sufficient evidence in its favor in the case at hand.
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...
2024-10-08 - Case Details
In his email the Respondent stated that as the
trademark issue arises on the disputed domain name, he will not continue with the disputed domain name in
future.
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...
2024-09-16 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that:
a) It is the owner of the SANDOZ Mark, having registered the SANDOZ Mark in the United States and
numerous other jurisdictions. Each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to the SANDOZ Mark as
each one reproduces the SANDOZ Mark in its entirety and adds a generic term, being the word “benefit” or a
misspelling of that word.
...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. ...
2024-09-12 - Case Details
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ZYN Trademark
for the purpose 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...
2024-07-16 - Case Details
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 4
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...In such cases, the
domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to the incorporated mark for purposes of UDRP
standing. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
...
2024-09-11 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BPCE trade marks, and that the addition of the generic Top-Level
Domain (“gTLD”) “.group” does not affect the analysis as to whether the disputed domain name is identical or
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade marks.
...Discussion and Findings
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-09-10 - Case Details
Complainants submit that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainants’
LASTMINUTE and HOTELSCAN trademarks, as they fully incorporate those latter trademarks which, in turn,
all predate the registration of the disputed domain names. ...Having said so, the Panel comes to the following finding:
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
First, it is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2024-08-22 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a
mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.
...
2024-08-12 - Case Details
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. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-08-09 - Case Details