Complainant
Complainant contends as follows:
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the ACCENTURE mark, in that it incorporates, in its entirety, Complainant's well-known ACCENTURE mark and simply combines this mark with the ORACLE mark. ...Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
By submitting copies of registration certificates and printouts of the USPTO database, Complainant has proved to the satisfaction of the Panel that it has trademark rights in the ACCENTURE mark. ...
2017-09-19 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asks for the transfer of the disputed domain names on the grounds that each of those disputed domain names is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of those domain names and that the Respondent registered and is using those domain names in bad faith.
...In the administrative proceeding, the complainant must prove that each of these three elements are present.”
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the first element is present.
The Complainant is the registered proprietor of the BAYER word mark which is registered with the US Patent and Trademark Office as trade mark number 1482868. ...
2017-12-28 - Case Details
Complainant
The disputed domain names are identical and/or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark.
The disputed domain names incorporate the Complainant’s trade mark. ...See paragraph 4.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”).
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the mark AMERICANEAGLE.COM by virtue of its registered trade mark for that term.
...
2016-05-18 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts that disputed domain name is identical with the Complainant’s SIREF FIDUCIARIA trademark application and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SIREFID trademark as the SIREFID is an abbreviation of the words SIREF FIDUCIARIA.
...For the foregoing reasons the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark SIREFID in which the Complainant has exclusive rights.
...
2018-05-16 - 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 demonstrated that it owns United Kingdom trade mark registration No. 609225 for its NORGINE mark, which was registered on September 26, 1939.
The disputed domain name wholly incorporates the NORGINE mark which is sufficient to render it confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. The addition of the word “ventures” after the word “norgine” in the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.
...
2021-10-22 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Trade Marks, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, and the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
...Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English.
6.4 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 Marks acquired through use and registration.
...
2021-03-03 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety, which the Complainant submits should be sufficient for a finding of confusing similarity. ...The dispute is properly within the scope of the Policy and the Panel has jurisdiction to decide the dispute.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied as to the Complainant’s rights in those trademarks for which it has produced copies of the registration documents, as listed in section 4 above.
...
2021-09-13 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has demonstrated rights through registration and use on the DECATHLON mark.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name that incorporates Complainant’s DECATHLON mark in its entirety plus an additional word “iran” is confusingly similar to the DECATHLON trademark of Complainant. The addition of the term “iran” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.
...
2021-12-17 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant makes the following contentions:
(i) that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's CLARINS Mark;
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights nor any legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...This was prior to receiving the Complaint.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element the Complainant must have trade or service mark rights and the Domain Name must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade or service mark.
...
2014-08-15 - Case Details
Complainant
Great American contends that the accused domain name is confusingly similar to its trade name and registered service mark, GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY. Great American further contends the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the accused domain name. ...Discussion and Findings
Section 4(a) of the Policy entitles a complainant, such as Great American, to seek an administrative transfer of a second level Internet domain name in the event that it "proves," to the satisfaction of the Panel, three predicates:
(1) an accused domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(2) a registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the accused domain name; and
(3) a registrant’s domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2001-03-30 - Case Details
See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.11.2.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademarks BIMBY and THERMOMIX.
...The Panel finds that the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to trademarks in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2020-09-10 - Case Details
- The Berry marks are prominently featured at the Berry Company's online sites located at , , and (Complaint Exhibit D).
- The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark because the domain name is identical to and incorporates in its entirety Complainant's mark, adding only the <.com> top level domain designation, which the U.S. ...Discussion and Findings
In order for Complainant to prevail and have the disputed domain name, , transferred to it, the Complainant must prove the following (the Policy, para 4(a)(i-iii):
- the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
- the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
- the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has exhibited a copy of the United States principal register
registration for the service mark The Berry Company, registration no. 1,605,880
dated July 10, 1990, in international classes 35 and 41 for telephone
directory services and advertisements (Complaint Exhibit C). ...
2002-03-07 - Case Details
Under paragraph 4 (a) of the Policy, Complainant must prove each of the following:
(i) the domain name in issue is identical or confusingly similar to complainant’s
trademark or service mark;
(ii) 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.
...Numerous WIPO decisions in this connection
have ruled that the fact that a trademark is incorporated in its entirety, is
per se sufficient to establish that the domain name is identical or confusingly
similar to the registered trademark (see amongst others Nokia Corporation
v. Phonestop, WIPO Case No. ...
2002-08-06 - Case Details
Domain name identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant has provided evidence of ownership of several trademark registrations and applications for VOGUE in different countries, including the Italian registration No. 207823 / No. 496080 dating back September 1965, in class 16 for the word mark VOGUE ITALIA.
...The Panel finds that the Complainant’s lack of action does not mean that others may register domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks as already stated i.a. in Bloomberg L.P. v. G. Sandhu FA0012000096261 (NAF February 12, 2001).
...
2001-11-13 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Pursuant to the ICANN Policy, Complainant must convince the Panel on the following three criteria:
i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which
it holds rights;
ii) Respondent has no right or legitimate interests in the domain name;
iii) the domain name was registered and used in bad faith.
...Moreover, the Panel notes that the name of the unregistered company is Pernod Records -- in itself confusingly similar in sound to the Pernod-Ricard trade name; and in any event, this full name is not adequately reflected in the domain name at issue.
...
2002-05-14 - Case Details
Discussion
and Findings
In order to
succeed in this proceeding, Article 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant
to prove the existence of each of the following elements:
1. The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the
Complainant has rights;
2. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
3. ...On
this basis, this Panel finds that the Domain Name (disregarding the '.com' portion)
is identical to ��棣�娓�涓�娴锋�璞���琛���,
��棣�娓�涓�娴峰��璞���琛���
and ��棣�娓�涓�娴锋�涓伴�惰��� and confusingly
similar to the Complainant's name in English.
Legitimate Interest
��棣�娓�涓�娴峰��璞���琛���
corresponds to the Complainant's name and the Complainant has shown that it has
legitimate rights to want to use the Domain Name. ...
2001-10-30 - Case Details
These are as follows:-
(i) The Respondent's domain names are identical or confusingly similar to
a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the
domain names;
(iii) The Respondent's domain names have been registered and are being used
in bad faith.
...i) The Respondent's domain names are identical or confusingly similar to
a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights
The Complainant submits that the only difference between the Respondent's domain
name and the Complainant's trade marks is the addition of the words "sports
book". ...
2002-09-06 - Case Details
i) That the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly
similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
In its Response the Respondent admits that the disputed domain names are similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...Furthermore the Complainant finds no records indicating that the Respondent is involved in any legitimate enterprise under a name identical or confusingly similar to the mark in which the Complainant has rights.
By contrast the Respondent submits that the Respondent has a legitimate interest in respect of the disputed names. ...
2002-10-14 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the domain name in issue is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights, 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.
...The Panel will now consider in detail each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a):
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has registrations for the trademark set out above. The trademark is not identical to the disputed domain names (one domain name is a pluralisation of the trademark and the other domain name is a hyphenation of the trademark), but in the Panel’s view both domain names are very similar, so paragraph 4(a)(i) is proved.
...
2003-03-07 - Case Details
Further the Complainant contends that the domain name the subject of the Complaint is confusingly similar to its own trade marks, that the Respondent has no legitimate interest in the domain name and that the Respondent has registered and used the name in bad faith.
...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 domain name is confusingly similar for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the ICANN Policy to what the Complainant styles as its "AT&T Broadband" common law trade marks and its registered and common law trade mark AT&T.
...
2002-12-18 - Case Details