A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Since the Complainant has no registered trademark rights, it must establish as a preliminary matter that it
has obtained common law rights, in the nature of unregistered trademark rights, in the name or mark upon
which it relies.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-07-04 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the requirement of article 2.1(a) of the Regulations.
...Ye Li
Case No. DNL2024-0021
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith...
2024-06-13 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This first element requires that the Complainant demonstrate that (1) it has trademark rights and (2) the disputed domain name is identical or similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
1. ...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainants trademarks.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The second element requires the Complainant to prove that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in question.
...
2011-02-11 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant had registered rights in the trademark SWISS RE as at the Relevant Date by way of its United States and international registered trademarks specified above. ...The Panel accordingly finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights and finds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied in favour of the Complainant.
...
2014-12-16 - Case Details
The disputed domain names include not only the famous trademark ALLIANZ but also a reference a core business of the Complainant , namely “travel insurance” with typos. The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the trademarks over which the Complainant has rights.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain names incorporate the entirety of the Complainant’s main trademark ALLIANZ together with a generic (misspelled) suffix.
...
2012-09-27 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel determines that the language of this administrative proceeding should be English.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...To this end, prior UDRP panels have established that attracting Internet traffic by using a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark may be evidence of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP.
...
2012-09-18 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel agrees with the Complainant that under the circumstances of this case there is a high similarity which may easily lead Internet users into confusion and therefore the Panel is satisfied that the first element has been proven. ...The Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the registered trademarks of the Complainant and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy therefore are fulfilled.
...
2012-09-10 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainants are the owners of the AUDI, and VOLKSWAGEN trademarks. Complainants’ trademarks are very well-known.
The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainants’ trademarks. The addition of the term “eco” before the trademarks AUDI and VOLKSWAGEN in the disputed domain names is merely generic and does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity of the disputed domain names with Complainants’ trademarks.
...
2012-02-22 - Case Details
The Panel will now review each of the three cumulative elements set forth in Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concurs with the opinion of several prior UDRP panels which have held that, when a domain name wholly incorporates a complainant’s registered trademark that may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy. ...In addition, it has been consistently decided that the addition of generic or descriptive terms to an otherwise distinctive trademark is to be considered confusingly similar to the registered trademark. V&S Vin&Sprit AhB v. Giovanni Pastore,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0926; Thomson Broadcast and Media Solution Inc., Thomson v. ...
2012-02-22 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that:
1) The domain names and are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks FERRAGAMO and SALVATORE FERRAGAMO. The only difference between the domain names and the Complainant’s trademarks is the suffix “outletonline”. ...The Panel agrees that the suffix is insufficient to distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from the trademark FERRAGAMO and holds that is confusingly similar to the trademark FERRAGAMO. The first limb of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is established.
...
2013-02-05 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel has decided that the language of the proceedings shall be English.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires that the Complainant demonstrates that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...This does not, however, change the overall impression of the disputed domain name which remains very similar to said word mark MERK-ECHT. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2013-02-01 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the complainant must prove each of the following:
(i) that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(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.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainants are the owners of the DR. MARTENS and DOC MARTENS trademarks, registered prior to the disputed domain name in the European Union, the United States of America and Canada.
...
2012-04-26 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the complainant must prove each of the following:
(i) that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainants are the owners of the DR. MARTENS and DOC MARTENS trademarks, registered in a number of countries, including the United States of America – home country of the Respondent.
...
2012-04-17 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established trademark rights in POKERSTARS and POKERSTARas evidenced by the trademark registrations submitted with the Complaint, as mentioned above.
The Panel is also prepared to find that the domain names and are confusingly similar to the Complainant`s trademarks POKERSTARS and POKERSTAR. The addition of the generic top-level domain suffix “.mobi” does not change this finding. ...
2011-11-04 - Case Details
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant is obliged to prove that each of the three following elements are satisfied:
(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark 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 disputed domain name has been registered and been used in bad faith.
...The Trading Force Limited,
WIPO Case No. D2002-1038.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks.
...
2010-09-28 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to trademarks in which the Complainant owns rights; the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name; and the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has rights in the trademark MEAD JOHNSON by virtue of the registered trademarks which it has cited. ...
2010-10-15 - Case Details
Complainants object to the use of the Domain Name at issue by Respondent on the following grounds.
The disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which Complainants have rights. The only distinction between the trademark CASINO.COM and the Domain Name is the addition of the two letters “i” in the middle and “s” at the end of the word “casino”. ...On the other hand, if Complainants fail to prove only one of the three elements above, they must fail on their Complaint under the Policy.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainants evidenced their rights in the registered Community Trademark CASINO.COM (see above, section 4). ...
2010-07-13 - Case Details
For the reasons set forth below, a majority of the Panel concludes that this Complaint should be denied.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant clearly holds rights in the trademark SANOFI. The Domain Name is identical to the distinctive mark, except for the omission of the final letter "i". The Panel concludes that this difference is relatively insignificant in this instance. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark.
Accordingly, the Panel concludes that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2014-09-25 - Case Details
The Complainant has not granted Respondent any license, permission, or authorization by which it could own or use any domain name registrations which are confusingly similar to the VAN CLEEF & ARPELS mark;
iv. The Respondent has never been commonly known by the VAN CLEEF & ARPELS mark nor any variations thereof, and has never used any trademark or service mark similar to the disputed domain names, other than the infringing use noted herein;
v. ...Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed in this administrative proceeding, the Complainant must prove that:
i. the disputed domain name 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 disputed domain name; and
iii. the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2013-11-28 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the complainant proves each of the following three elements to obtain a decision that a domain name should be either cancelled or transferred:
(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 with respect to the domain name; and
(iii) The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has rights in the Trademark.
A comparison between the Disputed Domain Name and the Trademark owned by the Complainant shows that the Disputed Domain Name is clearly confusingly similar to it to the extent that it reproduces the entirety of the Trademark. ...
2013-10-28 - Case Details