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...
2023-11-22 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s trademark AUTOCAD, since it reproduces the mark in its entirety with the addition of the suffix
“keygen”, which is short for the generic term “key generator”.
...September 21, 2023).
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2023-11-21 - Case Details
Respondent
Respondent did not reply to 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. ...The addition of the term “agrics” in the disputed domain
name does not negate a finding of confusing similarity. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is
confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 1.7 and 1.8.
...
2024-02-01 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
As noted above, the Panel determines that the appropriate Respondent is weev seez.
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...
2024-01-31 - Case Details
http://www.dotnetpanel.com/
page 3
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Based on the available evidence, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a mark in
which the Complainant has rights and that the first element of the Policy has been established.
...
2024-01-31 - Case Details
page 3
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the f irst 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...
2024-01-03 - Case Details
The onus of proving 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. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-01-23 - Case Details
Based on the available record, the Panel finds the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark in
which the Complainant has rights. The f irst element of paragraph 4(a) 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...
2024-01-22 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established unregistered rights in GREEN TREE FINANCES LIMITED for purposes 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...
2024-01-22 - Case Details
The Complainant argues that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The Domain Names incorporate the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety, in combination with the descriptive terms “casinobonus” and “freespins”. ...For the purpose of assessing confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the generic Top-Level Domains “.com” and “.net”.
The Panel finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2017-07-05 - Case Details
Respondent
Respondent did not respond to Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the VIRGIN and VIRGIN MEDIA marks in view of its trademark registrations. ...The Panel further finds that the whole of the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the VIRGIN MEDIA mark as they incorporate the trademark fully and as the addition of the ".online" or the ".site" generic Top-Level Domain does nothing to ameliorate the entire reproduction of the VIRGIN MEDIA trademark.
...
2017-01-13 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar or identical to the Trade Mark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...In all the circumstances, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English.
6.2 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.
...
2017-01-11 - 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.
...In all the circumstances, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English.
6.2 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.
...
2016-11-18 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its registered NO KID HUNGRY marks, in which the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests. ...Under paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, “A Panel shall decide a 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 first element of a UDRP complaint “serves essentially as a standing requirement” and entails “a straightforward visual or aural comparison of the trademark with the alphanumeric string in the domain name”. ...
2016-12-21 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant considers the Disputed Domain Name to be confusingly similar to trademarks and service marks in which it claims to have rights. Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. ...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. ...
2016-12-21 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant essentially contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its prior trademarks for CREDIT AGRICOLE, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Based on the arguments and evidence submitted, the Panel's findings are as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has shown that it has valid rights in the sign CREDIT AGRICOLE, based on its use and registration of the same as trademarks in a number of jurisdictions, commencing decades prior to the registration of the disputed domain name.
...
2018-09-05 - Case Details
This includes the acceptance of plausible evidence of the Complainant which has not been disputed.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the marks ETS and TOEFL pursuant to its registrations and also by virtue of its use of these marks in the USA and other countries.
The Panel considers that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to these marks, which it incorporates in their entirety together with descriptive or generic elements, namely the word “registration” and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.org”. ...
2017-06-26 - Case Details
The Complainant argues that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. The Domain Names incorporate the whole of the Complainant’s GUCCI trademark. ...For the purposes of assessing confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”.
The Panel finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2017-03-09 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainants’ contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainants have shown that they have registered rights in the Trade Marks as proprietor and licensee respectively. ...Therefore, the Panel finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Trade Marks in which the Complainants have rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainants have to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names (WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 2.1). ...
2017-04-27 - 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.
...In all the circumstances, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English.
6.2 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.
...
2017-04-07 - Case Details