Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant does not own registered trade mark rights for its MOM & ME trade mark but has trade mark applications for a stylized logo mark including the MOM & ME word mark pending since 2008.
...Although the disputed domain name, which includes the word "and" is not identical to the Complainant's mark, which features an ampersand instead, it is certainly confusingly similar to it.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complaint succeeds under the first element of the Policy.
...
2015-01-20 - 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
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has shown that it has rights in the Trade Marks. The Trade Marks consist of the name “Stuart Weitzman”. ...Therefore, the Panel finds that the Domain Name are identical or, in any case, confusingly similar to the Trade Marks.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name (WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel views on selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”), paragraph 2.1). ...
2015-04-07 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions and is therefore in default.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name incorporates the ERDF and LINKY trademarks in their entirety. ...Therefore, the Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to the ERDF and LINKY trademarks and, as a result, finds that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is met.
...
2015-02-25 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove: (i) that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which it has rights; (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. ...On this basis, the Panel considers that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s AUDI mark. There can be no doubt that many Internet users would assume that the Domain Name refers to the Complainant, so that the Complainant has a sufficient interest in it.
...
2015-02-12 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered trademark ASHLEY MADISON. It is made up of the Complainant's trademark ASHLEY MADISON to which the geographical indicator "jpn" has been added.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered trademark.
The first element of the UDRP is made out.
...
2015-01-21 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its ZANUSSI mark, from which it differs only in the addition of the generic word "maintenance" and the generic Top Level Domain suffix. ...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 registered and unregistered rights in the mark ZANUSSI. ...
2015-07-15 - Case Details
Accordingly, this Panel will proceed to a decision.
7. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, a complainant must show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights. ...To satisfy paragraph 4(a)(i), the disputed domain name must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. Here, the disputed domain consists of (i) Complainant’s registered NUVO mark and (ii) the generic Top-Level-Domain (“gTLD”) suffix “.com”. ...
2014-10-07 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
From a branding perspective, Complainant has operated predominantly through its famous trademarks (such as MARLBORO) over the years. ...Given the fact that the dominant portion of each Domain Name is the PHILIP MORRIS mark, and the facts that the mark is closely associated with cigarettes and "ecig" is a common new term for electronic or vapor cigarettes, the Panel finds without hesitation that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
The Panel therefore concludes that Policy paragraph 4(a)(i) has been established.
...
2014-12-01 - Case Details
It maintains that the Domain Name is clearly confusingly similar to the Complainant’s name and marks in that it comprises the term “Saks Fifth Avenue” and the word “hours” in combination.
...Namely, the Complainant must prove that:
(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (paragraph 4(a)(i)); and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name (paragraph 4(a)(ii)); and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (paragraph 4(a)(iii)).
...
2014-09-16 - Case Details
The first element is that the “domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights”. Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). ...The disputed domain name is more than confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark TENIS MANIA. In fact, said domain name is a complete reproduction of the trademark TENIS MANIA, owned by the Complainant.
...
2014-09-08 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the SOFTLAYER trade mark registrations owned by the Complainant’s wholly-owned subsidiary company, Softlayer; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The trade mark upon which the Complainant relies is SOFTLAYER, a trade mark which is registered in the United States of America and elsewhere. ...
2014-11-17 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a complainant must assert and prove each of the following:
(i) the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) the domain name registered by the respondent has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established that it has rights to word/design trademark registrations for ACCOR and ACCOR HOTELS.
...
2014-11-14 - Case Details
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its mark in the sense of the Policy, citing UDRP precedent to support its position.
...Its sole aim was related to its business activities.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is clear to the Panel that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar (in the sense of the Policy) to the Complainant's mark, because it contains the mark and merely adds the common word "boutique" (which relates to the Complainant's area of activity) to form the disputed domain name. ...
2014-11-05 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its famous MARLBORO trade marks as it incorporates the word MARLBORO in its entirety. ...Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion And Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has satisfied the requirement of establishing that it has trademark rights in MARLBORO. ...
2014-08-26 - Case Details
The Panel agrees fully with the Complainant’s arguments and accordingly does not consider it necessary to write a long decision.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is made up of the Complainant’s registered trademark NAVER LINE and the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) “.com”. Other than the hyphen, it is identical to the Complainant’s registered trademark. In any event, it is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark.
The first element of the Policy is made out.
...
2014-08-26 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the Trademarks as the dominant part of the Domain Names is "Coach" while the additions "outlet" and "shoes" are descriptive. ...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has shown that it has rights in the Trademarks. The element "Coach" which is identical to (the word element in) the Trademarks is to be considered the dominant part of the Domain Names. ...
2014-08-21 - Case Details
The Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s name with only the extension “.com” added. As such it is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark in which he has rights.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. ...Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that:
(1) The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(2) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(3) The Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2014-10-22 - Case Details
Secondly, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trade name and the SOLVAY trademarks. In its view, the Complainant's trade name and the SOLVAY trademarks enjoy a high degree of reputation in the chemical sector and are broadly used all around the world. ...A complaint may only succeed in these Policy proceedings if the above criteria are met simultaneously.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant holds worldwide trademark registrations for SOLVAY. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant's trademark in its entirety without any other word or letter. ...
2014-10-20 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
On the basis of the general background findings of fact set out above and the more particular findings and rulings set out below, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established trade mark rights in CLEARTRIP and has successfully made out its case for transfer of the disputed domain name.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In assessing the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s trade mark CLEARTRIP, which has been wholly incorporated in the disputed domain, the Panel accepts the Complainant’s contention that the ccTLD “.co” and the letter “s” may be disregarded as of minimal or no account in accordance with previous approaches:
See, e.g., the following decisions;
- Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v. ...To avoid any doubt even if it were not regarded as identical, the Panel is of the view that the disputed domain name is unquestionably confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CLEARTRIP trade mark.
The Panel therefore considers that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights, in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2014-02-21 - Case Details