The Panel notes that in any event the contents of the Respondent’s submissions do not
alter the outcome of this decision.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-01-09 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the trademark LKQ through registration and use
demonstrated in the record. The Panel also concludes that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to
page 4
that mark. The additional number “1” in the Domain Names does not alter the fact that the LKQ mark
remains clearly recognizable within the Domain Names.
...
2023-09-06 - Case Details
It is further noted that the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and, where appropriate, will
decide consistent with the consensus views captured therein.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...The Panel finds the entirety of the LEGO mark is reproduced within the disputed domain names.
Accordingly, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s LEGO trademark for
the purposes of the Policy. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
...
2023-08-18 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the EURELEC and
EURELEC TRADING trademarks, that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of
the disputed domain names, and that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used
in bad faith.
...page 4
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established rights in the EURELEC and EURELECTRADING trademarks. ...
2023-11-13 - Case Details
Further, according to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel may draw such inferences from Respondent's
failure to submit a Response as it considers appropriate.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1
The Panel finds the entirety of the trademark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly,
the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO
Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
...
2023-06-19 - Case Details
Complainant
The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s ITECHWORLD trademark or, at the very least,
confusingly similar to it.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. ...The burden of proof of each element is borne by the Complainant.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence presented, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the ITECHWORLD
mark by virtue of its trademark registration.
...
2023-10-09 - Case Details
Therefore, the Respondent is reluctant to relinquish what the Respondent believes is its property without any benefit in return.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name incorporates the VELUX trademark in its entirety.
...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark and that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is met.
...
2017-01-10 - Case Details
Upon considering the above, the Panel determines that English be the language of the proceeding.
6.2. Substantive Matters
A. 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.
The Respondent’s use of the distinctive trademark of the Complainant at the disputed domain name is also suggestive of the Respondent’s bad faith. ...
2016-12-08 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the disputed domain name, the Complainant must prove each of the following:
(i) that the disputed domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks or service marks in which Complainant has rights;
(ii) that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well established that the threshold test for confusing similarity under the UDRP involves a comparison between the trademark and the disputed domain name to determine confusing similarity. ...
2016-12-01 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts that both Domain Names are confusingly similar to its registered WEWORK trademarks and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. ...Under paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, "A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element of a UDRP complaint "serves essentially as a standing requirement" and entails "a straightforward visual or aural comparison of the trademark with the alphanumeric string in the domain name". ...
2016-12-19 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant provided enough evidence of its rights through the registration and use of the ACCOR and ACCORHOTELS trademarks in many countries of the world, included India, where is presumably located the Respondent.
...For all the above-mentioned reasons, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the ACCOR and ACCORHOTELS trademarks that belong to the Complainant, therefore the Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2018-08-29 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the three requirements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are met:
1. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s TNT trademark. The Complainant argues that the mark TNT is a well-known mark in Turkey, registered before the Turkish Patent office. ...The first element is that the “domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights”. Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). ...
2016-05-03 - Case Details
Namely, the Complainant must prove that:
(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i)); and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name (Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii)); and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii)).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.2 The Panel is prepared to accept that the Complainant has unregistered trade mark rights in the term "Raptor Engineering". ...
2016-03-30 - Case Details
Therefore, the proceedings have been rightfully instituted against the Respondent and a decision to transfer the Domain Names, if such were given, can be implemented by the Registrar.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Trade Marks consist of the element "Intesa Sanpaolo" which is incorporated in its entirety in the Domain Names. ...Therefore, the Panel finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Trade Marks.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names (WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 2.1). ...
2016-04-22 - Case Details
The first element is that the “domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights”. Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). ...Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant owns the mark ACCENTURE and its global website is under the domain name .
...
2016-05-13 - Case Details
The Complainant is of the opinion that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its DOGRU TERCIH trademarks.
Furthermore, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. ...The Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition ("WIPO Overview 2.0") and, where appropriate, will decide consistent with the WIPO Overview 2.0.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has registered trademark rights in DOGRU TERCIH, particularly by virtue of Turkish trademark registration TPE no. 2007-44938 of August 20, 2007.
...
2016-05-25 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant considers the Disputed Domain Name to be confusingly similar to trademarks and service marks in which it claims to have rights. Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. ...The Panel will deal with each of these requirements in turn.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element, Complainant must first establish that there is a trademark or service mark in which it has rights. ...
2016-07-19 - Case Details
The Complainant must prove in this administrative proceeding that each of the aforesaid three elements is present so as to have the disputed domain name transferred to it, according to paragraph 4(i) of the Policy.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established its rights in the VERIZON trademark, duly registered inter alia in the United Kingdom and in the United States of America. ...D2000-0651: "The Panel takes the view that the mark 'Hang Sent' because of its wide use and promotion internationally has become so well known and 'famous' that any third party seeking to register and deal in a confusingly similar domain name such as that in dispute must create a presumption of bad faith.").
Under these circumstances and absent evidence to the contrary, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name.
...
2016-07-08 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar or identical to the Trade Mark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Although not ultimately determinative given the evidence put before the Panel by both parties, the Panel considers it somewhat curious that the Complainant chose not to inform the Panel of the history of the relationship between the parties, including the fact the Respondent was previously a distributor of the Complainant’s products under the Trade Mark in China.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark acquired through use and registration.
...
2017-10-20 - Case Details
Complainant opposed this request and the Respondent’s trademark registration for BINKOPTION was denied; the reason for the denial was that BINKOPTION would be confusingly similar to Complainant’s senior mark BINCK, because both marks refer to the same services, the element “bink” is similar to and phonetically identical to the senior mark BINCK, and the descriptive term “option” does not distinguish the marks sufficiently. ...D2008-0377 (the combination of the trademark ERGO in the second level of a domain name together with a generic term “finance” made the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the trademark in question). The omission of the letter “c” in “bink” might be seen also as a misspelling of Complainant’s BINCK trademark (also known as “typosquatting”).
...
2017-08-14 - Case Details