A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel observes that the Complainant has provided evidence that it has rights in the AUCHAN trademarks, and that the Complainant's trademarks are still in force.
...In view of the above, the Panel considers that the Complainant has proved that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Policy outlines circumstances (paragraph 4(c)), if found by the panel to be proved, shall demonstrate the Respondent's rights or legitimate interests to the domain name. ...
2014-08-21 - Case Details
In summary, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its EVAPCO trademark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and the Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...Therefore, the Panel shall further analyze the eventual concurrence of all these elements in the present case.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant holds trademark registration for EVAPCO in the United States since 1979 and in Romania, where the Respondent is located, since 2007. ...
2014-12-10 - Case Details
The first main contention by the Complainant is that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to trademarks in which it has rights. In support of this contention, the Complainant makes the preliminary point that its registration of the MARLBORO Trademarks suffices to establish that it has rights in these marks. ...A complainant bears the burden of proving each of these elements.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel has no hesitation in finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to trademarks in which the Complainant has rights, being the MARLBORO Trademarks. ...
2013-11-05 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights because it “is the Complainant’s legal name and has been used for many trademarks/services that she has endorsed with her name”, including women’s wear, eyewear, fragrance and jewellery.
...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
(i) Background
The letter filed by the Complainant’s representative in response to Administrative Panel Procedural Order No. 1 is notable for its lack of clarity. ...
2013-05-27 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts common-law and state-registered trademark rights in the service mark RIVER POOLS & SPAS and argues that all five Domain Names are confusingly similar to this mark. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. ...Therefore, the Panel exercises its discretion to proceed to a decision in this proceeding.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant claims common-law rights in RIVER POOLS & SPAS as a service mark, as well as two state registrations of that service mark. ...
2010-09-03 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name reproduces or at least strongly imitates the Complainant's trademark EVIAN in its entirety. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established trademark rights in the term EVIAN. ...
2010-07-15 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant argues that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to his TRUMP mark and that the addition of the word “estates” only adds to the likelihood of confusion because the Complainant is known for his real estate dealings.
...As noted above, however, the Respondent may take steps to forestall the implementation of a decision to cancel or transfer the Domain Name pending resolution of a relevant judicial complaint.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant holds numerous trademark registrations consisting of, or including, the well-known and long established TRUMP mark. ...
2015-05-18 - Case Details
They
also own many other domain names which incorporate the BROOKFIELD and BROOKFIELD PROPERTIES
page 3
marks, such as , and .
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks, which are recognisable within the
disputed domain name. The disputed domain name is closely similar to Complainant’s BROOKFIELD
PROPERTIES mark: the only element of the disputed domain name that differs from such mark is the
addition of a letter “e” to said mark. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is undisputed that Complainant has rights over the BROOKFIELD and BROOKFIELD PROPERTIES
marks.
...
2022-10-20 - Case Details
As a result, the
Panel does not consider it necessary to join the Second Complainant in the proceeding.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element that a complainant must establish is that the disputed domain name is identical with, or
confusingly similar to, the complainants trademark rights.
There are two parts to this inquiry: the complainant must demonstrate that it has rights in a trademark at the
date the complaint was filed and, if so, the disputed domain name must be shown to be identical or
confusingly similar to the trademark.
For the first part of the inquiry, there is no requirement that the trademark be registered. ...
2022-07-13 - Case Details
The Complainant argues that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to both marks and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. ...The Complaint will be evaluated on its merits.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has not demonstrated that it holds a registered TAX ANALYSTS trademark. ...
2007-04-20 - Case Details
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
If a domain name incorporates a distinctive mark in
its entirety, “it is confusingly similar to that mark despite the addition
of other words.” ...Such domains have repeatedly been found to be confusingly similar to
the owners’ trademarks in UDRP proceedings.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered NATIONWIDE mark to satisfy the requirements of ¶ 4(a)(i) of the Policy
B. ...
2006-02-13 - Case Details
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant prove each of the following three elements to obtain a decision that a domain name should be either cancelled or transferred:
(i) The domain name registered by the Respondent 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 with respect to the domain name; and
(iii) The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...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 Complainant’s PEPPERDINE mark, in which the Complainant unquestionably has established rights through registration and continuous and extensive use. ...
2007-11-29 - Case Details
Additionally, in each case a Complainant must establish each element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, which are as follows:
(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 domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Lorna Kang,
WIPO Case No. D2002-1064.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In meeting its obligation under paragraph 4(a)(i), the Complainant is required to evidence that is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. ...
2009-11-05 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name in issue is identical to the Complainant’s
trademark except for the addition of the generic word “merchandising”.
...The domain name is therefore confusingly similar with the trademark PHILIPS in which the Complainant has rights.”
The same principle must apply to the addition of the word “merchandising”. ...
2006-08-17 - Case Details
These issues are discussed as follows.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well-established that, under the Policy, the TLD extension is to be disregarded in determining whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark. ...The question in this case is whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark. Making that determination is based on an objective comparison between the disputed domain name and the textual elements of a mark in which the Complainant establishes rights. ...
2008-04-04 - Case Details
It also operates a large number of domain names incorporating the mark SOFITEL.
5.2 The disputed domain name reproduces the whole of the SOFITEL trademarks and is identical or at least confusingly similar to the SOFITEL trademarks. Adding a geographic name is insufficient to give any distinctiveness to the domain name in dispute and the addition of a geographical name to a trademark does not exclude confusing similarity. ...This website clearly seeks, by reason of the adoption of a confusingly similar domain name which leads to the site, to mislead people into thinking that they have accessed a website operated by or connected with the Complainant. ...
2007-05-15 - Case Details
The Complainant argues its requested remedy as follows:
First, the Complainant believes that the disputed domain names are identical or at least confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks TELEKUTU and LINECUBE.
Second, it is argued that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in using the disputed domain names. ...Armitage Hardware,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0187).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
First, the Panel confirms that the Complainant has satisfied the threshold requirement of having trademark rights in the marks TELEKUTU and LINECUBE. ...
2011-11-11 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant first claims that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Trademark because they consist solely of the Complainant’s famous Trademark with a simple inversion of the elements “bb” and “Hotel”. ...The Respondent indeed registered the Disputed Domain Names which are confusingly similar to the Trademark owned by the Complainant for use in connection with services which are at least partly identical to those of the Complainant in the hotel business and competing with them. ...
2012-01-09 - Case Details
Complainant
5.1 The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its PEUGEOT trade marks and identical to its CLIC PEUGEOT trade mark.
5.2 The Complainant maintains relying upon Croatia Airlines d.d. v Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. ...No doubt the Center will bring this aspect of this decision to the attention of the Registrar in any event.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.12 The Panel accepts that the Domain Name is virtually identical to the Complainant’s CLIC PEUGEOT mark. ...
2011-09-01 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has placed limited material before the Panel as to its use of its business name and corporate name and trademark usage as of December 14, 2006. ...This usage is of a trademark which is the singular of the characterizing part of the present domain name namely the singular of “NorthwestBanks” and thus the present domain name is held to be confusingly similar to the characterizing part of the name used by the Complainant as a trademark. The Panel is also prepared to accept that the Complainant has on balance succeeded in showing prior use in commerce of the mark NORTHWEST FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK.
...
2008-04-17 - Case Details