Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the following three elements are present:
(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant's highly distinctive and well-known TGV Marks in which the Complainant has rights. ...
2009-01-09 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical and confusingly similar to the CYTODYNE marks in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant asserts that the distinctive portion of the disputed domain name is identical to its CYTODYNE marks.
...Taking each of these issues in turn, the Panel decides as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence produced by the Complainant, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the CYTODYNE mark.
...
2008-06-12 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
5.A Complainant
5.A.1 Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name, but for the addition of the gTLD “.com”, is identical to the CLAN CAMPBELL trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
5.A.2 Rights or Legitimate Interests
5.A.2.1 The Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized use by the Respondents of the CLAN CAMPBELL trademarks or the disputed domain name.
5.A.2.2 Given the well-known status of the CLAN CAMPBELL trademark, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent, whatever its true identity must have known that it could not acquire any rights to or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
5.A.2.3 For the same reason, the Complainant asserts that no use by the Respondents of the disputed domain name can be bona fide.
5.A.2.4 Certainly, says the Complainant, the use to which the Respondents have put the disputed domain name has not been bona fide, legitimate or fair. ...The Respondent Whois Protection has a record of undefended decisions made against it under the Policy where the disputed domain names have been identical to or confusingly similar to other widely known third party trademarks. These have included the HALIFAX trademark of HBOS plc, the AEROPOSTALE trademark of Aerospostale West Inc., the BMW trademark of Bayerische Motoren Werk A.G. etc. ...
2008-08-04 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark PORT AVENTURA since: (i) the disputed domain name is composed of the distinctive terms “port aventura” and the generic words “theme” and “park”; and (ii) the words “theme” and “park” are descriptive of the Complainant’s business.
...Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove all three of the following elements to be entitled to the relief sought: (i) that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and (iii) that the Respondent’s domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
...
2008-04-10 - Case Details
i) The Respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Panel accepts the evidence of the Complainant to the following effect:
(a) That it has a registered trademark dated May 14, 1997, for the mark "Just Rentals Buy As You View".
...The Panel is therefore prepared to accept that the domain name is confusingly similar to the existing Complainant’s trade mark registration, the mark applied for in the application and the underlying common law trade mark rights which have existed since 1997.
...
2000-11-03 - Case Details
The domain names "singaporeairlines.org", "singaporeair.net" and "singaporeair.org" are obviously identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks, whether registered or common law. The fact that in two of them the letters "lines" are omitted does not diminish the fact that the marks refer clearly to an airline with a close connection with Singapore – in fact the universally-known Singapore Airlines.
...Decision
For the foregoing reasons, the Panel decides:
(a) that the domain names registered by the Respondent are identical or confusingly similar to the trademark to which the Complainant has rights;
(b) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names; and
(c) the Respondent’s domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
...
2000-09-11 - Case Details
The domain name "singaporeairlines.com" is obviously identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. The Panel so decides. The addition of the ".com" is of no importance in arriving at this conclusion.
...Decision
For the foregoing reasons, the Panel decides:
(a) that the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark to which the Complainant has rights;
(b) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(c) the Respondent’s domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2000-09-11 - Case Details
The Panel will now review each of the three cumulative elements set forth in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy to determine whether Complainant has complied with such requirements.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The conduct by Respondent is argued by Complainant to be a kind of “typosquatting” or “spoofing” where previous UDRP decisions found that there was confusing similarity.
...The Panel takes into account previous UDRP decisions relating to the practice of “typosquatting” where such practice has consistently been regarded as creating domain names confusingly similar to the relevant mark. This is a well-established point. ACCOR v. Brigit Klostermann,
WIPO Case No. ...
2007-09-18 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the AIR FRANCE trademark because (i) the AIR FRANCE trademark is entirely reproduced in the domain name, (ii) the suffix “travel” refers to the main business of Complainant and suggests that the disputed domain name refers to Complainant, and (iii) Complainant owns a very similar domain name ().
...The Panel will now review each of the three cumulative elements set forth in Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy to determine whether Complainant has complied with such requirements.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The trademark AIR FRANCE is a widely known trademark. When a respondent merely adds generic or descriptive terms to an otherwise distinctive and famous trademark, the domain name is to be considered confusingly similar to the registered trademark. ...
2007-05-15 - Case Details
It makes a submission of reverse domain name hijacking.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel has considered the evidence of the Complainant and finds that the Complainant on the evidence has registered trade marks for the mark MONARCH. ...Therefore, in the Panel’s view the domain name in dispute is confusingly similar to the mark MONARCH in which the Complainant has rights. Accordingly, the Panel finds for the Complainant in respect of this element.
...
2008-02-13 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that (A) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark PARTYPOKER in which it has rights; it points out in this connection that the domain name of the Respondent incorporates its trademark in its entirety and that the addition of the word “play” does not sufficiently distinguish the domain name from its mark which is well-known; (B) the Respondent has no rights ore legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; (C) the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...In conclusion the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark PARTYPOKER of the Complainant.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
PARTYPOKER cannot be considered to be a descriptive word, in which the Respondent might have a legitimate user-interest. ...
2006-06-30 - Case Details
The communication did, however, effectively show receipt by the Respondent of the Complaint.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has produced documentary evidence to the effect that it has rights in the trademark AMERICAN HEALTH NETWORK. ...On the evidence it is clear that the Respondent has registered a domain name effectively identical and thereby confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known trademark and is using it as an Internet website. The website operates and appears to compete, directly or indirectly, in the Complainant’s field of the supply of medical information, goods and services. ...
2007-03-15 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first part of the disputed domain name is identical to the famous trademark of the Third Complainant. ...It is unnecessary for the Panel to consider whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the individual trademarks for SONY and ERICSSON owned by the Third and Second Complainants respectively.
...
2006-11-14 - Case Details
For these reasons, HILL-ROM is a very well-known trademark.
The trademark HILL-ROM is confusingly similar to the domain name .
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. ...Discussion and Findings
To qualify for cancellation or transfer, the Complainant must prove each element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, namely:
(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
domain name; and
(iii) The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2006-08-22 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant claims to be entitled to common law trademark rights in the name First Magnus Financial due to its regular usage as a business name since 1996 across all fifty states of the United States of America, extensive advertising and large revenues from the name.
...The domain name in issue reproduces the trademark without the gaps between the words and with just the addition of the suffix “.com”. It is clearly confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is not called ‘First Magnus Financial’ and does not appear to trade under that name. ...
2007-01-05 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), a complainant must prove that the
domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service
mark in which the complainant has rights.
In line with such provision, the Complainant must prove two aspects, i.e. it
enjoys the trademark rights; and, the disputed domain name is identical with
or confusingly similar to its trademark or service mark.
It is not disputable that the Complainant has the trademark registrations over
“日立” in many countries and has been using the mark “日立” extensively and consistently
for many years. ...
2005-08-12 - Case Details
In particular, the Complainants claim that the disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to their trademark CIC and identical to their trademark and registered domain name CIC SECURITIES.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name registered is . The Complainants have rights in trademarks for the denominations CIC and CIC SECURITIES. ...
2007-11-19 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
5.1 Complainant contends that Respondent has registered a domain name which is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark registered and used by Complainant, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name at issue, and that Respondent has registered and is using the domain name at issue in bad faith.
5.2 Respondent contends that its use of the term "workamper" predates Complainant's alleged coining of the term, and that Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in respect of the domain name and that Respondent is using the domain name at issue in good faith.
6. Discussion and Findings
6.1 Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel as to the principles the Panel is to use in determining the dispute: "A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules, and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
6.2 Since both the Complainant and Respondent are domiciled in the United States, and since United States’ courts have recent experience with similar disputes, to the extent that it would assist the Panel in determining whether the Complainant has met its burden as established by Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Panel shall look to rules and principles of law set out in decisions of the courts of the United States.
6.3 Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following:
1) that 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,
2) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and,
3) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
6.4 The Panel finds that the domain name at issue is identical or confusingly similar to the mark in which the Complainant claims rights. ...
2001-06-12 - Case Details
Applicable Rules
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that Complainant, to obtain the requested remedy, must prove each of the following:
(i) that the domain name in issue is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark, and
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name, and
(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
6. ...Harrod’s Closet, WIPO
Case No. D2001-1027.
b. Identical or confusingly similar
The Domain Name consists of a combination of the word "harrods" (identical to the HARRODS Mark, in which the Complainant holds rights), and the suffix ".tv". ...
2002-01-22 - Case Details
All that the complainant is required to do under this procedure is to demonstrate that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to trade or service marks owned and used by the complainant and in respect of which the complainant has rights. ...Decision
In the light of the foregoing the panel decides that although the Domain Name in question is potentially confusingly similar to the trade and service marks of Easyjet, Mr. Holt appears to have a legitimate interest in the Domain Name, and that there is no evidence that it was registered or is being used in bad faith.
...
2000-08-24 - Case Details