Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated that it owns registered trade mark rights for its BOBO CHOSES mark
and in particular European Union trade mark registration 005871348. The disputed domain name wholly
incorporates the Complainant’s trade mark and is therefore confusingly similar to it. The addition of a dash
and the word “shop” after the BOBO CHOSES mark in the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding
of confusing similarity. ...
2023-02-17 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name wholly contains the Complainant’s trademark. The generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, is of no significance in comparing the domain name with the trademark for the purpose of the Policy and the addition of the descriptive word “prepaid” does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark. ...The only distinctive element of the disputed domain name is the Complainant’s trademark and accordingly the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark SIMYO in respect of which it has established rights.
B. ...
2015-02-24 - Case Details
The complaint was duly
filed as indicated in Section 3 above.
5.The Parties’ Contentions
Infospace contends that
the domain names in question are identical or confusingly similar to its trade
marks and trading names; that Dominion Hill has no right or legitimate interest
in respect of the domain names; and that the domain names have been registered
and are being used in bad faith.
...There has been no response
by Dominion Hill to either of the complaints, notwithstanding the fact that
delivery to its noted email address has clearly been made.
6.Panel Findings
Under paragraph 4 of the
UDRP the Complainant’s burden is to prove in relation to the complaint that:
(i)the domain name
at issue 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 interest in respect of the domain name;
(iii)the domain name
has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2001-02-05 - Case Details
The complaint was duly
filed as indicated in Section 3 above.
5.The Parties’ Contentions
Infospace contends that
the domain names in question are identical or confusingly similar to its trade
marks and trading names; that Dominion Hill has no right or legitimate interest
in respect of the domain names; and that the domain names have been registered
and are being used in bad faith.
...There has been no response
by Dominion Hill to either of the complaints, notwithstanding the fact that
delivery to its noted email address has clearly been made.
6.Panel Findings
Under paragraph 4 of the
UDRP the Complainant’s burden is to prove in relation to the complaint that:
(i)the domain name
at issue 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 interest in respect of the domain name;
(iii)the domain name
has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2001-02-05 - Case Details
Discussion
In order to succeed in its claim, Complainant must demonstrate that all of the following elements enumerated in Paragraph 4(a) of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy") have been satisfied:
i. the domain name in dispute 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 with respect to the disputed domain name; and
iii. the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Decision
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Panel finds that the domain name ritarudner.com is confusingly similar to Complainant’s common law trademark Rita Rudner; that Respondent Internetco Corp. has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name, and that the Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith. ...
2000-08-08 - Case Details
6. Discussion and Findings
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...
2025-09-11 - Case Details
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.
...Factual Background
5. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
7. Decision...
2024-05-15 - Case Details
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
page 3
Complainant contends that (i) the Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks; (ii)
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names; and (iii) Respondent registered and
is using the Domain Names in bad faith.
...D2010-0842.
Here, each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DIGICERT trademarks. The
DIGICERT trademark is recognizable in the Domain Names.
...
2025-05-20 - Case Details
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
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
The Complainant asserts that panels
have found the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous or
widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of 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...
2024-12-19 - Case Details
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
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
Complainant
The Complainant contends that it has rights in the trademark GEOPOST and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar and in fact identical to that trademark.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. ...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 must prove that it has rights in a mark and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to that mark.
...
2008-04-09 - Case Details
Thus, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainants’ STARBUCKS trademark, satisfying the first requirement of the Policy.
...Particularly
where the Domain Names are all confusingly similar to the Complainants’
famous STARBUCKS mark, such advertising cannot be deemed use in connection with
a bona fide offering of goods or services by the Respondent. ...
2007-04-02 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that Complainant has not proved that it has trademark rights in YOUNG HOLLYWOOD or YOUNG HOLLYWOOD AWARDS.
...The Panel further finds that the Domain Name
is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HOLLYWOOD LIFE trademark. The
addition of the descriptive or generic term “online” does not avoid
confusion. ...
2007-01-15 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided evidence of trademark rights in the SAPO trademark.
The Panel shares the view held in American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico v. ...In view of the above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2009-01-21 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
(1) Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to mark in which Complainant has rights
(i) Members of the Complainant’s group are registered proprietors of the Complainant’s mark in various jurisdictions. ...iii) The Domain Name is identical with and/or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
mark, because it incorporates the entirety of the Complainant’s mark (citing
Nikon, Inc. and Nikon Corporation v. ...
2006-07-10 - Case Details
The Panel has to take its decision on the basis of the statements and documents submitted by the Complainant and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules, and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided evidence for the registration of its trademark AMBIEN in the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and many other countries.
...So,
rather than distinguishing the Domain Name from the Complainant’s trademark,
the addition of the descriptive term “zolpidem” to the word “ambien”
makes the Domain Name confusingly similar to the trademark. Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company v. Mark Overbey, WIPO
Case No. ...
2006-02-10 - Case Details