- 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
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
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
The
Complainant also considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar
to its trade mark.
The Complainant considered that a member of the public viewing the domain name
address would most likely assume that persons responsible for the domain name
were licensed or sponsored by the Complainant.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant owns registrations of the trade mark "YORKSHIRE TELEVISION"
with which the domain name is virtually identical.
...
2003-06-16 - Case Details
Complainant alleges that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s THE FILM FREAK trademark. Complainant is of the opinion that the disputed domain name "identically includes Complainant’s FILM FREAK domain name, and his THE FILM FREAK trademark."
...D2000-1415)
and that, in this context it is sufficient that "the domain includes (…)
a confusingly similar approximation [of the trademark], regardless of the other
terms of the domain name." ...
2003-06-16 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its EXPEDIA trademark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Name, and that the Respondent registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark and domain name
except for the addition of the hyphen and the word "cruise." ...
2003-08-11 - Case Details
Complainant
First, Complainant contends that it has common law rights to "Sarah Lawrence College"
by virtue of the name it has used to describe its educational facilities for
more than 70 years, and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar.
Complainant further notes that it has filed three trademark and service mark
applications with the USPTO.
...D2002-0939
(December 20, 2002), which is one of many UDRP cases involving a company
affiliated with the Respondent in this dispute.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
A Complainant may satisfy its burden by establishing that it has rights in
a common law trademark. ...
2003-07-14 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant essentially contends that:
a. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant and/or its subsidiaries have acquired substantial reputation
and goodwill in the mark SIME DARBY and/or variations thereof. ...It is the Complainant’s contention
that the disputed domain name registered under the name of the Respondent is
identical and/or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade/service mark
SIME DARBY and/or the Complainant’s corporate name SIME DARBY.
...
2003-09-26 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant submits that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its trademark "Ticketmaster" in which it has rights.
Furthermore, the Complainant holds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name for the following reasons:
- the Respondent claims long use when actual use is less than six months;
- the Respondent engages in dishonest practices;
- the Respondent has no trademark rights in the Domain Name and the Respondent has no legitimate interest and can show no bona fide use.
...Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements that the Complainant must prove to merit a finding that the domain name of the Respondent be transferred to the Complainant:
(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 legitimate interests in respect of the domain name, and
(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2004-04-20 - Case Details
Said circumstances are the following ones:
(i) To prove that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) To prove that the Respondent does not hold rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names;
(iii) To prove that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used by the Respondent in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element required by the Policy is that the disputed domain name and the "ELENA MIRO" trademarks are identical or confusingly similar.
...
2004-01-07 - 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
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
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...
2025-08-29 - 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
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
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
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
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
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...The disputed domain name incorporates the dominant element of the mark; and the
disputed domain name is an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark, with the
replacement of the first letter, “a” with an “e”. Accordingly, the disputed domain names are confusingly
similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 1.10. and 1.9.
...
2024-05-10 - Case Details
In light of this, the Panel agrees with the consolidation.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-02-09 - Case Details