Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MILLIMAN mark. It differs only by the omission of the first letter “i” but remains virtually identical in sound and appearance. ...The Panel would have accepted a Response in Chinese, but none was filed.
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has trade mark rights in MILLIMAN. The disputed domain name is clearly a deliberate misspelling of the word “milliman”. ...
2020-05-01 - Case Details
Namely, the Complainant must prove that:
(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (paragraph 4(a)(i));
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (paragraph 4(a)(ii));
(iii) The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (paragraph 4(a)(iii)).
...Noting that the Respondent did not object to this request and that did not submit a response, and that the website at the disputed domain name is not in French, the Panel accepts the Complainant’s request to issue a decision in English.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is .
The Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations formed – exclusively or not, with the name KILOUTOU.
...
2020-05-20 - Case Details
Those elements are:
(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and,
(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it is the owner of trademark registrations for the names SPRING GATE and SPRINGGATE. ...
2020-05-18 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Domain Name:
(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service 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.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Normally speaking state trademark registrations are not granted the same deference as national trademark registrations. ...
2020-05-29 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the complainant to succeed must satisfy the Panel that:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which complainant has rights;
(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
6.1. ...Having considered all circumstances of this case, the Panel concludes under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that English shall be the language of the proceeding.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established its rights in the PROTONVPN Trademark according to the different registrations in different jurisdictions.
...
2020-04-29 - Case Details
The Panel proceeds to the decision on the merits taking into account the circumstances of the case.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Policy requires that the Complainant show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2017-06-02 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
1. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s distinctive E LECLERC trade mark. The Complainant’s mark has been reproduced in the disputed domain name, and used in combination with the generic and descriptive term “sport”. ...Such a burden placed on the Complainant appears to be unmerited in this instance where the Respondent is clearly able to comprehend and communicate in English.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it has registered trade mark rights in E LECLERC. ...
2016-09-05 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
To prevail, the Complainant must prove all three elements set out in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy:
(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.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Ownership by a complainant of a federally-registered trademark on the Principal Register without disclaimer of the relevant portion constitutes prima facie evidence that the complainant owns trademark rights for purposes of the Policy. ...
2016-11-14 - Case Details
On a balance of the respective Parties' interests, the Panel concludes that it is fair and appropriate for English to apply as the language of the proceeding.
6.2 Substantive Matters
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has shown that it has rights in the trade mark TELSTRA. The entire mark has been incorporated in the disputed domain name. Since the gTLD ".site" has no particular bearing on the issue of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark, the gTLD being a technical requirement of all domain names, the Panel therefore finds the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's mark.
...
2016-11-22 - Case Details
In order to succeed in its Complaint, the Complainants are required under paragraph B(11)(d)(1) of the ADR Rules to demonstrate the following:
(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by the national law of a Member State and/or Community law and; either
(ii) the disputed domain name has been registered by the Respondent without rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name; or
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar to a name in respect of which a right or rights are recognized or established by national law of a Member State and/or Community law
The first Complainant sufficiently showed that it is the owner of the HELINOX Trademark, which is established by European Union law. ...
2018-04-19 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Having considered all the matters above, the Panel therefore determines, under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, that it will:
(i) Accept the filing of the Complaint in English;
(ii) Accept the filing of the Response in Chinese; and
(iii) Render this decision in English.
6.3 Substantive Elements of the Policy
The Complainants 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 Mark acquired through use and registration.
...
2018-05-09 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the Respondent is required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding in the event that the Complainant asserts to the applicable dispute-resolution provider, in compliance with the Rules, that:
"(i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith".
...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 Complainant has produced a copy of a USPTO registration document in respect of the trademark CARECORPS. ...
2017-03-28 - Case Details
In relation to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy: the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CALVIN KLEIN trade mark in which it has rights. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s CALVIN KLEIN trade mark in its entirety. ...There is nothing to suggest that the Respondent has been or will be prejudiced thereby.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established it has rights to the CALVIN KLEIN trade mark. The entire mark has been incorporated in the disputed domain name.
...
2016-02-05 - Case Details
General
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name, the Complainants must prove each of the following, namely that:
(i) The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainants have 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.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name comprises “wildpcs”, which is in substance Wild PCS Inc.’s corporate name and claimed service mark, and the “.com” gTLD identifier. ...
2016-02-25 - Case Details
Respondent claims that it adequately discloses its identity on the website as Clary Business Machines, that Complainant is the one acting in bad faith by waiting many years to bring this claim, and that its offer to sell is merely a good faith attempt to settle the dispute.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is undisputed that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights. ...
2016-01-19 - Case Details
The Panel also consulted the Internet Archive under for websites connected to the Domain Name which yielded one result, dated November 15, 2013, showing a Chinese language webpage with the "Jack Wolfskin" name and logo and pictures of outdoor clothing, back packs and footwear.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has shown that it has rights in the Trade Marks.
The Trade Marks consist of or contain the name "Jack Wolfskin", which is incorporated in its entirety in the Domain Name. ...Therefore, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical or, in any case, confusingly similar to the Trade Marks.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Since it is in general difficult, if not impossible, to prove a negative (i.e., that the Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the mark) - especially where the Respondent, rather than the Complainant, would be best placed to have specific knowledge of such rights or interests – and since paragraph 4(c) of the Policy describes how a Respondent can demonstrate rights and legitimate interests, a Complainant's burden of proof on this element is light (see e.g., De Agostini S.p.A. v. ...
2016-01-15 - Case Details
Substantive Issues
Under the Policy, in order to prevail, a complainant must prove the following three elements for obtaining the transfer of a domain name:
(i) that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the complainant has rights;
(ii) that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and
(iii) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant showed to have trademark rights in the name "Volkswagen" which is undoubtedly a well-known trademark.
...
2016-01-14 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a complainant must prove that:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Accordingly, this proceeding has taken place in English as well.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that Complainant has trademark rights in the well-known LEGO Mark and that the disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s trademark in its entirety with the additional elements of a hyphen followed by the word “town” and the use of the gTLD “.com.” ...
2016-04-25 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
To succeed in this proceeding, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied:
(i) the disputed 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 interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The requirements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are conjunctive. A consequence of this is that failure on the part of a complainant to demonstrate one element of the Policy will result in failure of the complaint in its entirety. ...
2016-04-14 - Case Details
Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that (i) it shall accept the Complaint and all supporting materials as filed in English; and (ii) English shall be the language of the proceeding and the decision will be rendered in English.
6.2 Substantive Matters
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order for the disputed domain name to be cancelled or transferred:
(i) the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent 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 interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
On the basis of the evidence introduced by the Complainant, the Panel concludes as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights in COMBIVENT by virtue of its use and registration worldwide of the same as a trade mark. ...
2017-06-23 - Case Details