Complainant
The domain name "musclenfitness.com" is the same as or is confusingly similar to the MUSCLE & FITNESS mark registered to and used by Complainant on magazines and on-line magazines. ...The panel finds the disputed domain name to be virtually identical and to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant has established this element.
Illegitimacy
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out, without limitation, circumstances which, if proved, establish a registrant’s rights or legitimate interests to a disputed domain name. ...
2001-03-20 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
Complainant asserts:
(i) The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s name and pending trademark. Complainant sent a protest letter to the Respondent by e-mail and certified mail notifying Respondent that Complainant owned the GROW mark and demanding that Respondent surrender the Disputed Domain Name because it is confusingly similar to Complainant’s GROW trademark.
...Thus, the Panel finds for the Complainant on the first element, that Respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name.
...
2001-11-01 - Case Details
Complainant
Spencer asserts that (i) the three contested domain names are identical or confusingly similar to service marks in which it has rights; (ii) Absolute has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names; and (iii) that the domain names were registered and are being used by Absolute in bad faith.
...The Panel also finds that the contested aladdinbailbonds domain names are identical to Spencer’s ALADDIN BAIL BONDS mark, and are confusingly similar to both of Complainant’s ALADDIN BAIL BONDS and ALADDIN marks. Therefore, paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
...
2001-09-13 - Case Details
The impugned Domain Name is identical or confusingly
similar to the Complainant’s trademark "CARFAX." The Complainant has
incontestable rights due to registration in the United States of America and
due to long and extensive use the Complainant has gained common law rights over
the trademark "CARFAX."
...Each of these requirements will be dealt with separately.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.3. Complainant has used the trademark CARFAX, whether registered or otherwise,
since 1984. ...
2002-09-24 - Case Details
Opinion of the Panel
1. Is the domain name identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights?
The domain name is not identical to any of Complainant’s
registered trademarks. It is, however, confusingly similar. Complainant points
out correctly that the addition of a geographical term to the name of Complainant’s
hotels makes the likelihood of confusion greater, not less, since it appears
to indicate one of the 193 locations at which Complainant renders its services
– not coincidentally, the very location from which Respondent seeks to render
its own audio-visual services. ...
2003-02-05 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.1 The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied both elements of the requirement that the Respondent's domain name be identical or confusingly similar to a marking in which it has rights. ...Complainant has therefore demonstrated that Respondent's domain name is identical or confusingly similar to marks in which it has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
6.2 Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides that a Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a domain name in, without limitation, the following three ways. ...
2003-07-07 - Case Details
Moreover, in accordance with Paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, if a party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any provision of, or requirement under, the Rules or any request from the Panel, the Panel shall draw such inferences therefrom, as it considers appropriate.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This question raises two issues: (1) Does the Complainant have rights in a trademark or service mark; and (2) Is the domain name identical or confusingly similar to such trademark or service mark.
...The Panel agrees with
the Complainant that the domain name is confusingly similar with the CAIXA ECONOMICA
FEDERAL mark, as the words CAIXA ECONOMICA are sufficient to identify the Complainant
in the eyes of Brazilian and Latin American Internet users. ...
2003-06-30 - Case Details
As a result, the name STANSTED AIRPORT has sufficient secondary association with the Complainant for common law rights to exist under the law of England and Wales.
The disputed domain name is also confusingly similar to the Registered Trade Mark in that the Registered Trade Mark contains the element STANSTED, which is identical to an element of the disputed domain name. ...D2001-1121) and the cases
there cited.
The Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark BAA STANSTED and Device.
The Complainant has established this element.
...
2002-01-25 - Case Details
These elements are that:
"(i) Respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a
trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain
name; and
(iii) Respondent’s domain name has been registered and is being used in bad
faith."
...Furthermore, the Panel decided in the case of and
that "Each of the disputed domain names
incorporates in full the "Vivendi" mark, in combination with either
the "Universal" or "Seagram" marks and, thus, are confusingly
similar to the Complainant’s marks." [2]
(see also the case [3]).
Complainant therefore met the burden of proving that Respondent is the registrant
of domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks
owned by Complainant.
...
2002-04-02 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
In order to succeed in its Complaint the Complainant has to show the following
elements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"),
paragraph 4 (a):-
(i) The domain name is 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 name.
...The Panel proposed to deal with each of these elements in turn.
(i) The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade
mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant contends that the relevant part of the domain name "Telstra
International" is confusingly similar to the name Telstra which is the subject
of the extensive portfolio of trade marks "Telstra" referred to above.
...
2002-06-05 - Case Details
The subject domain names and
are obviously confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, in each
case merely adding a non-distinctive internet-related element, in the one
case the prefix "e" and in the other the suffix "online".
...Decision
In the light of the findings in paragraph 6 above, the Panel concludes that:
- each of the subject domain names and
is confusingly similar to the trademark "TELSTRA" belonging
to the Complainant; and
- the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in either
of the subject domain names; and
- each of the subject domain names has been registered and is
being used in bad faith.
...
2002-06-05 - Case Details
Parties' Contention
5.1 Complainant
The Complainant contends that the said Domain Name, which is confusingly similar to its United States trade mark registration, cannot be used without inferring an affiliation to it. ...In view of the default it is open to the Panel, under paragraph (14)(b) of the Rules to:
"draw such inferences…as it considers appropriate."
6.2 Elements to be proved
To succeed, the Complainant must establish under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy that
i) the said Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which it has rights;
ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the said Domain Name; and
iii) the said Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent.
6.3 Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant is a company organized and existing under the laws of the Cayman Islands and has its principal office there. ...
2002-07-29 - Case Details
Parties' Contention
5.1 Complainant
The Complainant contends that the said Domain Name, which is confusingly similar to its United States trade mark registration, cannot be used without inferring an affiliation to it. ...In view of the default it is open to the Panel, under paragraph (14)(b) of the Rules to:
"draw such inferences…as it considers appropriate."
6.2 Elements to be proved
To succeed, the Complainant must establish under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy that
i) the said Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which it has rights;
ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the said Domain Name; and
iii) the said Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent.
6.3 Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant is a company organized and existing under the laws of the Cayman Islands and has its principal office there. ...
2002-07-29 - Case Details
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy
directs that Complainant must prove, each of the following:
(i) The domain name
is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights;
and
(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.
The domain at issue is
identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s FIRST UNION mark. The only
difference between FIRST UNION and the disputed domain is that Respondent has
added the generic word "credit," which Complainant also uses in connection
with FIRST UNION. ...
2002-07-08 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Domain Name is, pursuant to the Complainant, confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
The Complainant adds that there is a considerable risk that the common public would perceive the Respondent’s Domain Name either, as a domain name owned by the Complainant or that there would be some kind of commercial relationship with the Complainant. ...Hence, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.
A. Legitimate rights or interests in respect of the Domain Name.
...
2003-02-06 - Case Details
D2002-1025).
(ii)The domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's "VOLVO" mark.
There is no question that "vovlo" is confusingly similar to Complainant’s famous "VOLVO" trademark.
...Those requirements are that:
(i)Respondent's domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark
or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii)Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the
domain name; and
(iii)Respondent's domain name has been registered and is being used in
bad faith.
...
2003-10-07 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name is not identical to the mark HARRODS
in which the Complainant has rights. ...However the Panel agrees with the Complainant that the domain name is confusingly
similar to the mark HARRODS for the following reasons:
- The gtld .com cannot be taken into consideration when judging confusing similarity...
2004-01-21 - Case Details
Complainant
The domain name is identical and confusingly similar
to the Complainant’s mark GUINNESS.
A review of the Domain Name shows that the only difference between the domain
name and the Complainant’s mark GUINNESS is the inclusion of the prefix "sir"
and the inclusion of "COM" as a Top-Level Domain.
...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel has considered the allegation by the Complainant as to the identity
of the domain name at issue with the Complainant’s trademarks. ...
2004-01-08 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has demonstrated rights in the ERMENEGILDO ZEGNA trademark, including registrations in Italy, where Respondent is located. ...In view of all the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark ERMENEGILDO ZEGNA.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant must show that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. ...
2004-01-21 - Case Details
First, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly
similar to its registered STARFALL mark. The addition of a "z" at
the end of the name does not, in the Complainant’s submission, render the disputed
domain name distinct or non-confusing.
...Accordingly, for purposes
of the present Decision, the Panel will assume, without deciding, that the disputed
domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark and that the Respondent
lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.
...
2004-04-08 - Case Details