Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights because it “is the Complainant’s legal name and has been used for many trademarks/services that she has endorsed with her name”, including women’s wear, eyewear, fragrance and jewellery.
...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
(i) Background
The letter filed by the Complainant’s representative in response to Administrative Panel Procedural Order No. 1 is notable for its lack of clarity. ...
2013-05-27 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the trademark SWAROVSKI and highlights that the addition of the term “outlets” and of the hyphen does not lessen the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark.
...In view of the above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2013-03-04 - Case Details
D2009-0985 which states “[s]uch situations typically involve shared or common legal interests based on an agency, licensing, or affiliate relationship between the co-complainants”).
2. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Disputed Domain Name is identical to the Trade Mark. The Respondent’s addition of the generic top-level domain “.com” does not distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from the Trade Mark.
3. ...However, the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent’s default.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy provides that the Complainants must establish that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.
...
2012-07-16 - Case Details
Substantive Elements of the Policy
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the following three elements is present:
(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark; 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.
(i) Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant’s highly distinctive and well established ABB Marks.
...
2012-04-02 - Case Details
The first main contention by the Complainant is that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to trademarks in which it has rights. In support of this contention, the Complainant makes the preliminary point that its registration of the MARLBORO Trademarks suffices to establish that it has rights in these marks. ...A complainant bears the burden of proving each of these elements.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel has no hesitation in finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to trademarks in which the Complainant has rights, being the MARLBORO Trademarks. ...
2013-11-05 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The evidence is very elaborate and most convincing that the Complainant has rights in the Trademarks VIRGIN and VIRGIN MONEY not only in the United Kingdom but in several countries in the world and furthermore that there is a considerable reputation and fame associated therewith. ...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the VIRGIN and VIRGIN MONEY Trademarks of the Complainant.
The first criterion of the Policy has been met.
...
2013-08-19 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to its MIXMAG trademark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names and that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Names in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
...In the circumstances, the Panel is satisfied that it is appropriate for a single decision to be given in respect of both Domain Names, given the effective identity of the registrant.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Although the Respondent challenges the strength of the Complainant's rights in the mark MIXMAG, it does not appear to deny that the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. ...
2014-11-05 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel observes that the Complainant has provided evidence that it has rights in the AUCHAN trademarks, and that the Complainant's trademarks are still in force.
...In view of the above, the Panel considers that the Complainant has proved that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Policy outlines circumstances (paragraph 4(c)), if found by the panel to be proved, shall demonstrate the Respondent's rights or legitimate interests to the domain name. ...
2014-08-21 - Case Details
The disputed domain name wholly contains the Complainant’s
Trademark KHADI with a mere suffix “wadi”, and is therefore, confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
Trademark KHADI.
There are about seven outlets that are directly owned by the Complainant out of a total of 8050 outlets, the
remaining outlets are owned by authorized/licensed outlets.
...The Panel will address all the three aspects of the Policy listed above hereunder:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has furnished evidence of its rights in the Trademark KHADI through details of their
registrations and common law rights have accrued to it due to long and substantial use of the Trademark
KHADI not only in India, but also in certain other jurisdictions. ...
2022-09-21 - Case Details
Accordingly, this Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademark, and the first element of the Policy under paragraph 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-05-24 - Case Details
As a result, the
Panel does not consider it necessary to join the Second Complainant in the proceeding.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element that a complainant must establish is that the disputed domain name is identical with, or
confusingly similar to, the complainants trademark rights.
There are two parts to this inquiry: the complainant must demonstrate that it has rights in a trademark at the
date the complaint was filed and, if so, the disputed domain name must be shown to be identical or
confusingly similar to the trademark.
For the first part of the inquiry, there is no requirement that the trademark be registered. ...
2022-07-13 - Case Details
They
also own many other domain names which incorporate the BROOKFIELD and BROOKFIELD PROPERTIES
page 3
marks, such as , and .
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks, which are recognisable within the
disputed domain name. The disputed domain name is closely similar to Complainant’s BROOKFIELD
PROPERTIES mark: the only element of the disputed domain name that differs from such mark is the
addition of a letter “e” to said mark. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is undisputed that Complainant has rights over the BROOKFIELD and BROOKFIELD PROPERTIES
marks.
...
2022-10-20 - Case Details
On the basis of the arguments and evidence introduced by the Complainant, the Panel concludes as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights in the META and QUEST marks by virtue of its use and
registration of the same as a trade mark. ...Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
META and QUEST trade marks.
Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of the first element under paragraph 4(a) of the
Policy.
...
2022-11-15 - Case Details
The disputed domain name wholly contains the Complainant’s Trademark KHADI with a
mere suffix “furniture”, and is therefore, confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademark KHADI.
There are about seven outlets that are directly owned by the Complainant out of a total of 8050 outlets, the
remaining outlets are owned by authorized/licensed outlets.
...The Panel will address all the three aspects of the Policy listed above hereunder:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has furnished evidence of its rights in the Trademark KHADI through details of their
registrations and common law rights have accrued to it due to long and substantial use of the Trademark KHADI
not only in India, but also in certain other jurisdictions. ...
2022-12-13 - Case Details
The Respondent acknowledges that the Complainant owns trade marks for ABENA and BAMBO NATURE
and that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to those trade marks.
The Complainant’s official representative was informed about registration of the disputed domain names
“by the time” and did not object.
...Preliminary Issue – Informal Response
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
D. Rights or Legitimate Interests
E. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
For the above reasons, the Panel considers that the Complainant has established the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy....
2022-04-28 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of
the disputed domain names.
The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s Trademark. The disputed
domain names incorporate Complainant’s SWAROVSKI mark entirely, together with hyphens, country
names, country codes, or generic terms, as well as the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2023-09-13 - Case Details
Even
assuming that matter in the Complainant’s favour, however, leaves unresolved the issues raised by the
December 2018 deed, the Complainant’s execution of that deed on behalf of PSFS, and the other issues
raised in the NSW Proceeding.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element that the Complainant must establish is that the disputed domain names are identical with,
or confusingly similar to, the Complainant’s name, trade mark or service mark.
There are two parts to this inquiry: the Complainant must demonstrate that it has rights in a name, trade
mark or service mark at the date the Complaint was filed and, if so, the disputed domain names must be
identical or confusingly similar to the name or mark.
The Complainant does not own a registered trade mark, but relies on rights in TEA GARDENS FERRY as an
unregistered trade mark (Complaint [13]). ...
2023-09-08 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its registered MINDGYM and THE
MIND GYM trademarks. The Complainant states that it has not given permission for the Respondent to use
those marks, and the Respondent is not known by a corresponding name. ...Intuition Publishing Limited
Case No. D2022-3598
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith...
2022-12-06 - Case Details
According to WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7, a domain name is considered
confusingly similar to a trademark if it “incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant
feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name”. In this regard, the Complainants’
trademarks IBM and RED HAT are each readily recognizable within the disputed domain names, and
therefore, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainants’ trademarks. The
additional terms do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8).
...
2023-07-20 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to divest a respondent of a domain name, a complainant
must demonstrate each of the following: (i) the 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
page 4
legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (iii) the domain name has been registered and is
being used in bad faith. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-09-19 - Case Details