Discussion and Findings
The factual foundation of the Complainant’s contentions, as presented by the Complainant, while supporting its non-contradicted request for transfer of the disputed domain name by written evidence and ample reference to earlier UDRP case decisions, leads the Panel to the following conclusions:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant’s multi-registered and well-known trademark ELECTROLUX together with the word “iran”. ...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has made evident that it has not licensed or otherwise authorised the Respondent to use its trademark. ...
2012-08-23 - Case Details
D2001-0067);
e) the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its LEGO trade mark, the “ligi” and the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.com” suffixes, being generic and properly regarded as non-distinguishing;
f) there is no evidence of the Respondent being associated with or making any historical use of any LEGO trade mark or a LEGOLIGI trade mark prior to registering the disputed domain name and associating it with the said website;
g) the use of the disputed domain name in connection with a website carrying banner advertisements which are not associated with the Complainant is a bad faith diversion of goodwill and commercial traffic (citing Lego Juris A/S v. ...Notwithstanding that the Respondent has not replied to the claims of the Complainant, the Complainant nonetheless has the onus of making out the grounds for transfer or cancellation under the UDRP.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name, is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s LEGO trade mark for the following reasons.
...
2012-08-22 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied as to the existence of the Complainant’s considerable trade mark rights in France, and
accepts the Complainant’s assertions as to confusing similarity between its trade marks and the disputed domain name. ...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The present case demonstrates a continuation of the pattern of abusive behaviour by the Respondent of registering domain names confusingly similar to well-known trade marks, with no rights or legitimate interests thereto, and using the resulting domain names in connection with “pay per click” websites to possibly divert users to competitors of the trade mark owners and to create a revenue stream for the Respondent, as evidenced in the previous cases Hertz System, Inc. v. ...
2010-12-07 - Case Details
It says that it owns trademark rights in its name and mark IMPERIAL COLLEGE as noted above and that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its trademark in that it only differs from the Complainant’s trademark by the additional inclusion of the word “info”.
...This is a commonly used generic abbreviation which in no way distinguishes the Disputed Domain Name from the Complainant’s trademark and as a result the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s IMPERIAL COLLEGE trademark.
Accordingly the Complaint succeeds in relation to the first element of the Policy.
...
2010-11-17 - Case Details
General
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely that:
(i) The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark 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 was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
For the purpose of this head of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy it is sufficient for the Complainant to satisfy the Panel that it had relevant trade mark rights as at the date of filing of the Complaint. ...
2010-11-15 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that:
(1) The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark FEIYUE. The generic word “sneaker” in the Disputed Domain Name is insufficient to distinguish it from the Complainant’s trademark FEIYUE;
(2) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
By virtue of the trademark registrations indicated above, the Panel has no doubt that the Complainant has trademark rights in the word ”feiyue”. ...
2010-11-11 - Case Details
Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s trademark in its entirety and adds the letters “lxrh”. ...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Based on previous UDRP decisions, “a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. ...
2014-09-30 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainants contend that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the marks in which the Complainants have rights. More specifically, the Complainant Simbec Research Limited asserts that it has traded using the name SIMBEC since 1974 and that it has trademark registrations for marks consisting of or incorporating SIMBEC. ...Under these circumstances, the Panel finds it proper and fair to render this decision in English in this case.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant Simbec Research Limited owns trademark registrations for marks that consist of or incorporate SIMBEC in the UK and Spain. ...
2014-09-30 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered marks TATA and NEXON, which are widely recognized as being associated with the Complainant. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant provided evidence that it has prior registered trademark rights in the marks TATA and NEXON in India. ...
2014-09-29 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks because it incorporates the GILEAD trademark in its entirety and merely adds the non-distinctive and generic terms “hiv” and “resources”. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name 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 GILEAD trademark. ...
2014-09-09 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The PROMOCONCERT trademark is undeniably virtually identical to the domain name. ...The Panel holds that the Respondent cannot consistent with the Policy shield its conduct by closing it eyes to whether the domain name it is registering is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark of another. See Media General Communications, Inc. v. Rarenames, WebReg,
WIPO Case No. ...
2014-09-05 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered trademark AUTODESK. It is made up of the Complainant’s trademark AUTODESK to which the geographical indicator Vietnam has been added.
...The Panel will render its decision in English.
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated it has trademark rights in AUTODESK.
The disputed domain name is composed of the Complainant’s registered trademark AUTODESK and the addition a geographic indicator Viet Nam The Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark.
...
2014-11-24 - Case Details
The Trade Mark is one of the most well-known trade marks in the world, used by the Complainant in respect of, in particular, construction toys and related toys, worldwide, for many decades.
The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. ...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.
The Panel therefore holds that the Complaint fulfills the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2014-11-19 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical and/or confusingly similar to registered trademarks in which the Complainant has rights or interests because it incorporates the Complainant's ALIPAY trademark in its entirety. ...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
When the ccTLD identifier and the second-level extension are ignored, the disputed domain name consists of the Complainant's ALIPAY trademark. ...
2014-11-18 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has been able to demonstrate that it has rights to the trademark AXA.
...For the above-cited reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and therefore the condition of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is fulfilled.
...
2014-12-08 - Case Details
General
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Disputed Domain Name, the Complainant must prove:
(i) That the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which it has rights;
(ii) That the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and
(iii) That the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated that it has acquired rights in the ESSENSUALS and ESSENSUALS LONDON trade marks, by virtue of its portfolio of trade mark registrations and a domain name for them and its considerable use of the trade marks, not only in the United Kingdom but also internationally, including in Japan where the Respondent is situated.
...
2014-07-29 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends principally that: (i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and (iii) the disputed domains name have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
...Discussion and Findings
In order to prevail, the Complainant must prove that the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are present.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2014-08-25 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
In order for the Panel to decide to grant the remedy of transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant, it is necessary that the Complainant proves, as required by paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, that:
(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 disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Here, the Respondent has defaulted, and it is appropriate in the present case for the Panel to accept the reasonable facts asserted by the Complainant and to draw adverse inferences of fact against the Respondent.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), the Complainant must show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2014-08-18 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its VALIUM trademark. The mark VALIUM is well known and notorious and the notoriety will increase the likelihood of confusion.
...The Panel thus decides that the language of the proceedings shall be English and the decision will be rendered in English.
7. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel recognizes that the Complainant has registered trademark rights in the VALIUM mark. ...
2015-03-02 - Case Details
Complainant
(i) The disputed domain name is "at least" confusingly similar to Complainant's STUART WEITZMAN trade mark. The entire mark is incorporated into the disputed domain name.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been established by Complainant. ...
2015-01-22 - Case Details