A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s trademark and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.website”. ...For all these reasons, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Both Parties agree that the Complainant and the Respondent have never had any commercial connection with each other. ...
2018-04-12 - Case Details
Complainants
The Complainants rely on their rights in the above-referenced trademark and submit that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark FNAC DARTY, allege that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and that the disputed domain name has been registered or used in bad faith.
...Discussion and Findings
In order for the Complaint to succeed, the Complainants must show, in accordance with Article 21(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 874/2004 and Paragraph B11(d)(1) of the ADR Rules, that:
(a) the disputed domain name is identical with 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 Community law;
and either that
(b) the domain name has been registered by the Respondent without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or
(c) the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.
...
2018-04-10 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the holder of trademark registrations for SANOFI. The disputed domain names incorporate the Complainant's trademarks in their entirety, with the addition of the word "China" (and, as regards one of the disputed domain names, a hyphen) and the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com". ...In accordance with the findings above, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks within the meaning of the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), and the first element of the Policy is thus fulfilled.
...
2017-10-06 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the holder of trademark registrations for SANOFI. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant's trademarks in their entirety, apart from the fact that the letter "i" has been replaced with an "l", and with the addition of the generic Top‑Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com". ...In accordance with the findings above, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks within the meaning of the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), and the first element of the Policy is thus fulfilled.
...
2017-10-06 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainants have shown that they own or control numerous registrations of the trademark HUGO BOSS in many countries.
...The Panel thus finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainants’ trademark HUGO BOSS.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Further to the unrebutted prima facie case made out by the Complainants, the Panel considers that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in any of the disputed domain name, any more than he had in the case of the trademark of the Indian telecommunications company Aircel Limited. ...
2018-01-10 - 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 provided evidence of many registrations of its trade mark ASOS dating back many years prior to the date of registration of the disputed domain name and has also provided evidence of widespread use of that trade mark. ...As noted in WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0") section 1.7, where the disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of a trade mark, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for the purposes of the Policy.
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...
2018-01-04 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights because each embodies the trademark PORSCHE in its entirety, combining it with the name of a city or a place which is descriptive of the location of a Porsche Centre.
...The Panel finds that each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is not a licensee of, or otherwise affiliated with, the Complainant, and has not been authorized by the Complainant to use its PORSCHE trademark. ...
2017-11-02 - Case Details
Therefore, the Panel determines that the language of the proceedings shall be English.
6.2. Merits
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has uncontested rights in the OSRAM trademark. It has provided sufficient documentary evidence in this regard.
...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to trademarks in which the Complainant has rights.
The requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is thus fulfilled.
...
2018-02-08 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its SISTER LOCATION trademark because it consists of Complainant’s mark in its entirety, with a merely generic additional term, “free,” and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
...D2013-1930(“The addition of the generic and common term ‘free’ as well as of the generic Top-Level Domain (‘gTLD’) ‘.com’ does not distract from or change the reading of the Domain Name.”). Therefore, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SISTER LOCATION mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2018-01-26 - 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.
...
2018-01-26 - 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.
...
2018-01-19 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established rights in the trademark BELIZE OCEAN CLUB ADVENTURE RESORT based on the trademark registration cited under Section 4 above.
...Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has proven that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has established rights according to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2018-06-07 - 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.
...
2018-06-04 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has shown to have trademark rights over the marks IN BIZ and INTESA SANPAOLO.
...The Panel therefore concludes that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy contains a non-exhaustive list of circumstances that may demonstrate when a respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the use of a domain name. ...
2019-01-08 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s name, because it incorporates it entirely.
In relation to its contention for having unregistered trademark rights in its personal name, the Complainant points out that it has used its personal name in connection to his business for over six years not only in the regional, but also in the global context, and refers to the scale of its business, which employs about 1,000 employees working under the LUCKY LABS brand. ...Discussion and Findings
Pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a), the Complainant must prove each of the following to justify the transfer of the disputed domain name:
(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 Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...
2018-12-28 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s INSTAGRAM trademark. The Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s INSTAGRAM trademark in its entirety with the addition “begen ihilesi”. ...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established rights in the trademark INSTAGRAM. The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. ...
2019-05-13 - 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.
...
2019-05-06 - Case Details
Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant is the registered owner of the CARDS AGAINST HUMANITY Mark under United States registration No. 4,304,905, defined herein as Complainant’s Mark. ...b) The Domain Name is identical to or certainly confusingly similar to Complainant’s Mark.
Accordingly, the Panel is satisfied that the first element of the Policy has been met.
...
2018-12-24 - Case Details
Complainant
(i) The Complainant essentially contends that the disputed domain name is identical, or at least highly confusingly similar, to the Trademarks. It argues that its trademark CREDIT MUTUEL is integrally reproduced in the disputed domain name and the mere addition of an hyphen and of the Top-Level Domain name “.tech” is not enough to avoid confusing similarity.
...These elements will be examined in turn below.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided evidence that it has rights in the Trademarks well before the Respondent registered the disputed domain name.
...
2018-11-05 - Case Details
Based on the evidence and arguments submitted, the Panel's findings are as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has provided sufficient evidence that it has valid rights in the signs IQOS and VIVID based on its use and registration of the same as trademarks, incidentally commencing years prior to the registration of the disputed domain name.
...Accordingly, the Panel rules that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks, and the first element required by the Policy has been fulfilled.
...
2019-01-18 - Case Details