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 (0.07 sec)

Rows

<<  <  46741 - 46760  >  >>

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2019-2653 for nestle-remates.com, nestleautos.com html (35 KB)

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar In cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered identical or confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of the Policy. ...Accordingly, this Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark, and the first element of the Policy under paragraph 4(a)(i) has been satisfied. ...

2020-01-20 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2017-1583 for osramhbg.com html (33 KB)

For the purpose of easy comprehension of the Complainant (the only Party actively taking part in the proceeding) of the Panel’s decision without any necessity of translations, and in the interest of fairness to both Parties as well as the Panel’s obligation under paragraph 10(c) of the Rules, which provides that “the Panel shall ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition”, the Panel hereby decides under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, that the language of the proceeding shall be English and proceeds to its decision in English. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant is required to establish the following: (i) that it has trademark rights, and, if so, (ii) that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark. ...On the basis of the foregoing findings, and according to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s OSRAM trademark, and the first element, paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is established. ...

2017-12-14 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2009-0943 for meeza.com html (32 KB)

Reverse Domain Name Hijacking is defined in paragraph 1 of the Rules as meaning “using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain name holder of a domain name.” B. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Respondent does not dispute that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's Swiss trade mark registration and the Panel so finds. ...If someone else has already registered a domain name identical or confusingly similar to the proposed new mark, that domain name will be unavailable to the business unless it negotiates a transfer. ...

2009-09-24 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2005-1174 for greatwolfresort.com html (37 KB)

Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant (i) Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is both confusingly similar and identical to the Complainant’s GREAT WOLF Marks. ...In that regard and apart from judging this proceeding through mere default of the Respondent, the Panel makes the following specific findings. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that confusion is likely to arise as a result of the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name. ...

2006-02-24 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2006-0518 for montrosejetcenter.com, montrosejetcenter.net html (34 KB)

Complainant The Complainant claims state common-law and statutory rights in MONTROSE JET CENTER as a mark and contends that the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to that mark. The Complainant argues that the Respondent has never used a name equivalent to the Domain Names in its business and has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. ...The Complainant infers bad-faith registration and use of the Domain Names because they are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark and are used to redirect Internet users to a website about the Respondent’s directly competing business (see Policy, Paragraph 4(b)(iv)). ...

2006-06-30 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2004-0756 for blue-cross-insurance.org html (34 KB)

Each of these elements is considered in turn below. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has satisfied the first element: the disputed domain name is “identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights.” ...Prior decisions under the Policy leave little doubt that a registrant cannot have a right or a legitimate interest in using a domain name that is confusingly similar to registered trademarks or service marks in order to compete with the marks’ owner. ...

2004-12-13 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2001-1231 for bmw-uk.com, bmwbikes.com html (39 KB)

The next question is whether the disputed domain names isare identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks. In this regard, it cannot be said that the domain names and registered trademarks are identical, given the addition of the suffixes "bikes" and "-uk" in the case of the domain names. On the other hand, there can be little doubt that the latter are confusingly similar to these marks, on the basis submitted by the Complainant, namely that the letters "BMW" are the dominant and distinctive component of each of the domain names. ...

2002-01-08 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2025-4536 for next-microbiome.com pdf (181 KB)

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The first element of the Policy requires the Complainant to establish that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...case=D2012-1909 page 4 element consists of two parts: first, does the Complainant have relevant trademark rights; and second, is the Disputed Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to those rights. The Complainant has rights in NEXT-MICROBIOME trademark. This registration constitutes prima facie evidence of the Complainant's rights in the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...

2026-01-09 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2025-2880 for m-andm.com pdf (174 KB)

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark. The first element of the Policy is satisfied. ...Respondent 6. Discussion and Findings B. Identical or Confusingly Similar C. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, a respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests by showing bona fide use, being commonly known by the domain name, or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. ...

2025-09-22 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2023-3182 for signifyhealthjobs.com pdf (172 KB)

Having considered the Complaint, the Policy, the Rules, the Supplemental Rules, and applicable principles of law, the Panel’s findings on each of the above-cited elements are as follows. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires Complainant show that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SIGNIFY HEALTH Mark in which Complainant has valid trademark rights. ...

2023-10-18 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2023-3449 for 100thieus.shop, 100thievesmerch.net, 100thievesmerch.shop pdf (180 KB)

https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/ page 5 6.2 Substantive Issues A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Discussion and Findings 6.2 Substantive Issues A. Identical or Confusingly Similar B. Rights or Legitimate Interests C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith 7. Decision...

2023-10-17 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2023-3417 for webullindia.com pdf (154 KB)

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainants have established that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainants’ trademark and the requirement under the first limb of the Policy is satisfied. ...The late filed Response and the identity of the Respondents B. Identical or Confusingly Similar C. Rights or Legitimate Interests D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith 6. Decision...

2023-10-17 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2023-3445 for simplemodernus.com pdf (205 KB)

page 4 6.2 Substantive Issues A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has adduced evidence to demonstrate its established rights in the SIMPLE MODERN mark. ...Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied the first element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. ...

2023-10-25 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2025-4055 for instafollowers.app pdf (170 KB)

In the interest of fairness and due process, the Panel decides to accept the Late Response. 6.2. Substantive issues 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...

2025-12-01 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2025-4180 for alfa-laval.pro pdf (164 KB)

Had the response been filed in either Russian or English, the Panel would have been able to consider it. 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...

2025-12-01 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2025-5094 for cma-cgm-shippings.com pdf (165 KB)

Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 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...

2026-01-21 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2025-4789 for myultratechcement.com pdf (178 KB)

Notably, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark. The Complainant further argues that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name and has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...

2026-01-20 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2025-2608 for cotyinc.net pdf (177 KB)

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. 6.2 Substantive Issues 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...

2025-09-03 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2025-2686 for jcdecaux-uzb.com pdf (197 KB)

Notably, the Complainant contends that: - The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s JCDECAUX trade mark. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trade mark with the addition of the suffix “-uzb”. ...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. 6.2 Substantive issues A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...

2025-09-02 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2025-2639 for armizanagi.com, armlumex.com, armniva.com, armorbis.com, armzena.com pdf (152 KB)

Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions and is therefore in default. 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...

2025-09-01 - Case Details