About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

Full Text Search on WIPO Panel Decisions

Found 57807   document(s)s (0.071 sec)

Rows

<<  <  46641 - 46660  >  >>

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2024-4247 for congty-herbalife.com pdf (171 KB)

Second, the Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the HERBALIFE trademarks, because it entirely incorporates such trademarks, which is the most distinctive element in the Disputed Domain Name. ...Respondent 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar B. Rights or Legitimate Interests C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith 7. Decision...

2025-01-20 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2024-4606 for chefmichelin.com pdf (160 KB)

The page 3 Complainant asserts that the use of such trademark will generate a larger audience than would have been the case had the Respondent chosen a domain name that was not confusingly similar to a famous mark. The Complainant notes that due to the protection and constant use of the MICHELIN trademark by the Complainant, there is no chance that the disputed domain name was registered by coincidence. ...Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...

2025-01-14 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2024-2294 for barillapasta.com pdf (181 KB)

First, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s earlier BARILLA trademarks. In this regard, the Complainant claims that the disputed domain name contains the BARILLA word mark in its entirety. ...For these reasons, the Panel holds that the delay in bringing the present Complaint does not negatively impact on the Complainant’s cause. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...

2024-08-09 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2024-3217 for reclutosodexo.lat pdf (241 KB)

Especially, the Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SODEXO and SODEXHO trademarks. The Complainant states that the disputed domain name consists of the combination of its SODEXO trademark and the term “recluto”. ...Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...

2024-10-08 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2022-2668 for sunwardexcavators.com pdf (222 KB)

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Based on the evidence of the Complainant’s trademark registrations, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the semi-figurative SUNWARD mark. ...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant has satisfied the first element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. ...

2022-09-19 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2022-3210 for olympicmetaverse.com pdf (326 KB)

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has provided evidence of its registration of its OLYMPIC trademark as an International registration in Classes 1-45, the designation of this mark in the EU in the same classes and its trademark registration in Switzerland (again in Classes 1-45). ...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s OLYMPIC trademark and finds in favor of the Complainant. ...

2022-10-26 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2022-0627 for cbocs.com pdf (175 KB)

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”. page 5 A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complaint asserts that the Domain Name is “identical or confusingly similar to a trade name in which the Complainant has rights” (emphasis added), citing the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). ...Respondent 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar B. Rights or Legitimate Interests C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith 7. Decision...

2022-06-21 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2023-1174 for sanosil-mena.com pdf (189 KB)

In all of these circumstances, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and that the Complainant has carried its burden with regard to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...Preliminary matter: Other Legal Proceedings and Respondent’s request for suspension C. Identical or Confusingly Similar D. Rights or Legitimate Interests E. Registered and Used in Bad Faith...

2023-05-19 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2023-0283 for equifaxsecurity.com pdf (215 KB)

Because the Disputed Domain Name incorporates Complainant’s Mark entirely, it is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered Mark. Respondent’s addition of the term “security” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. ...D2022-4222 (finding confusingly similar to complainant’s ALLIED UNIVERSAL and ALLIED UNIVERSAL SECURITY SERVICES marks).) ...

2023-04-12 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2023-5383 for toros.com pdf (206 KB)

page 4 Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules directs the Panel to decide the 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 that the Complainant must establish is that the disputed domain name is identical with, or confusingly similar to, the Complainant’s trademark rights. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and the requirement under the first limb of the Policy is satisfied. ...

2024-03-12 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2016-1960 for albemarlelithium.com html (28 KB)

The Panel is also required under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy to examine whether the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark. The Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s ALBEMARLE trade mark in its entirety with the addition of the generic term “lithium”, a chemical element. ...The Panel therefore finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ALBEMARLE trade mark. The Complainant has therefore satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...

2016-11-30 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2016-1281 for tauber.com html (26 KB)

Complainant The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the TAUBER trademark in which the Complainant claims to have rights. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The first element that the Complainant must establish is that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant rights. ...

2016-09-15 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2016-0759 for mou-it.com, mouboots-sale.com, moubootssale.com, mousale.net html (30 KB)

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 MOU name by virtue of its use and registration of the same as a trade mark. ...The addition of the generic Top‑Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com" does not impact the analysis of whether the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark. Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark. ...

2016-07-08 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2017-0815 for lamborghiniaustin.com html (27 KB)

International Electronic Communications Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0270. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the LAMBORGHINI mark, in which the Complainant has demonstrated rights. ...Regardless, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to the LAMBORGHINI mark, and which adopts a naming convention used by authorized Lamborghini dealers. ...

2017-06-19 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2018-0600 for jesuisveolia.com, notveolia.info html (26 KB)

There is no basis for the Complaint against Domains By Proxy, LLC to have been maintained and the Panel dismisses it. D. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has established that it has trade mark rights in respect of the mark VEOLIA. ...While each case is judged on its own merits, in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trade mark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing.” Adopting that approach, the Panel finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s VEOLIA trade mark. ...

2018-05-23 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2018-2829 for tonerconnect.com html (26 KB)

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Ownership of a trademark registration is generally sufficient evidence that a complainant has the requisite rights in a mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...With Complainant’s rights in the TONER CONNECT mark established, the remaining question under the first element of the Policy is whether the disputed domain name (typically disregarding the generic Top-Level Domain “.com”) is identical or confusingly similar with Complainant’s mark. See B & H Foto & Electronics Corp. v. Domains by Proxy, Inc. / Joseph Gross, WIPO Case No. ...

2019-03-06 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2019-2289 for fuckaldi.com html (35 KB)

i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. That the disputed domain name includes the Complainants’ famous name and trademark ALDI. ...Therefore, the Panel is of the opinion that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainants’ trademark ALDI. Accordingly, the first element of the Policy has been met. ...

2020-01-22 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2018-0577 for doctor-greenthumb.com, dr-greenthumb.com, mydrgreenthumb.com html (27 KB)

To ensure fairness, the Panel will also admit the Respondent's Supplemental Filing. B. Identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark The first element that the Complainant must establish is that the disputed domain name is identical with, or confusingly similar to, the Complainant's trademark rights. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the disputed domain names are at least confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks and the requirement under the first limb of the Policy is satisfied. ...

2018-06-29 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2019-1979 for oyolife.com html (27 KB)

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The first element requires the Complainant to establish the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or a service mark in which it has rights. ...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name reflects the Complainant’s marks, namely its house mark OYO and the OYO LIFE mark and the disputed domain name is found confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant has fulfilled the first requirement under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. ...

2019-11-21 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2019-0515 for talage.com html (27 KB)

Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant (i) Identical or Confusingly Similar Complainant states that its TALAGE trademark satisfies the threshold requirement of having trademark rights to qualify for standing to file a UDRP case. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in its TALAGE trademark based on ownership of the mark’s registration in the United States. ...

2019-06-25 - Case Details