must prove the elements set out in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy: (i) Respondent's Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or...Identical or Confusingly Similar Complainant's evidence (as opposed to allegations) on use of its company name as a brand is sparse. But Respondent does not...
2003-12-12 - Case Details
consisting of, including, or confusingly similar to marks belonging to another for the purpose of profiting from the goodwill associated with the mark ”. Véase...similar, ni ante una actividad comercial real y efectiva por lo que el Demandante considera que se está ante una simulación de derechos y falta de interés...
2011-06-01 - Case Details
Contentions 5. 1 Complainant contends that: a) The domain name is identical, and therefore confusingly similar to the trademark EMBRATEL, because: i) The...other word or phrase similar to or including "embratel". Beside alleging that he acted in the past as an "small I.S.P." the Respondent does not give to...
2000-05-17 - Case Details
Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The test of identity...
2012-01-17 - Case Details
English and Spanish languages. Accordingly, the Panel finds that English is the proper language of the proceedings. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The...
2011-11-24 - Case Details
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...
2001-01-23 - Case Details
These elements are that: (i) Respondent's domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has...
2000-08-24 - Case Details
Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademarks KRAVET and KRAVET FURNITURE. The test for confusing...
2017-09-05 - Case Details
prove that each of the following three elements are present: (i) the domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in...
2007-07-10 - Case Details
available. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Once the gTLD “.tech” is ignored (which is appropriate in this case), the disputed...
2021-08-04 - Case Details
confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) That the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in...
2003-12-19 - Case Details
representing a considerable profit over their direct costs of registration”). 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant (i) Identical or Confusingly Similar The...Complainant argues that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its registered trademarks and service marks, which Gaylord maintains, are now...
2006-09-15 - Case Details
services purpose for the disputed domain name. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name incorporates the...
2011-12-20 - Case Details
Complainant Identical or Confusingly Similar 5.A.1 The Complainant is the owner of the Benelux trademark POKERFRIENDS.COM registered on December 28, 2009. The...or Confusingly Similar 5.B.1 The Respondent says that the identity of the Complainant's registered trademark POKERFRIENDS.COM and the disputed domain...
2010-06-29 - Case Details
content that is generated by common computer programs. 6. Discussion and Findings Rights in a Mark ; Identical or Confusingly Similar For Complainant to...intentional copying (as Complainant alleges) or innocently from both parties’ use of similar computer language for similar subjects (as Respondent alleges)? To...
2007-04-16 - Case Details
elements are that: (i) Respondent�s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and..."montyroberts.net" is without doubt confusingly similar to Complainant�s service mark "Monty Roberts". Complainant has met the burden of proving that Respondent is...
2000-06-13 - Case Details
to obtain relief. These elements are that: (i) Respondent�s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the...is without doubt confusingly similar to Complainant�s service mark "Monty Roberts". Complainant has met the burden of proving that Respondent is the...
2000-06-18 - Case Details
Confusingly Similar The Complainant indisputably has rights in the REIMEX mark as a result of his trademark registrations and his use of this mark on the market...domain name, the domain name will normally be considered identical or confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of the Policy. Furthermore, the...
2022-03-28 - Case Details
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...in order to make out a successful case. The first question to be considered is whether the domain name at issue is identical or confusingly similar to...
2001-02-07 - Case Details
Contentions 5.1 Complainant contends that: a) The domain names and are identical, and therefore confusingly similar to the trademarks JORNAL NACIONAL and GLOBO...of these trademarks could make justified use of domain names or . d) The domain names are identical to the trademarks, but not confusingly similar...
2000-06-16 - Case Details