Complainant
Complainant contends, in relevant part, as follows:
- The Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the WINSTON Trademark because they contain “(a) an exact reproduction of the registered mark WINSTON; (b) followed either by the country code ‘.ph’, or by the ‘.com.ph’ suffix, all in one continuous domain name...Policy, paragraph 4(1).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based upon the trademark registrations cited by Complainant, as well as the accompanying copies of trademark registration certificates, it is apparent that Complainant has rights in and to the WINSTON Trademark.
...
2012-07-19 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name of the Respondent is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark ACCUTANE. The disputed domain name contains the entire ACCUTANE trademark of the Complainant. ...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel as to the principles to use in rendering its decision: “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.”
...
2012-06-05 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name of the Respondent is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark ACCUTANE. The disputed domain name contains the entire ACCUTANE trademark of the Complainant. ...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel as to the principles to use in rendering its decision: “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.”
...
2012-06-05 - Case Details
A cease and desist letter was sent to the Respondent on July 10, 2012 requesting the Respondent to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant.
Each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s FORTUM trademark. The words “heat”, “power” and “energy” are generic and of Complainant’s business descriptive terms. ...Consequently, this Panel finds the disputed domain names confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has established rights. The first element of the paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is thus fulfilled.
...
2013-01-15 - Case Details
They have not been taken into account in reaching the Panel’s decision which had already been formulated and submitted to the Center.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There are two parts to this inquiry: the Complainant must demonstrate that it has rights in a name or trademark and, if so, the disputed domain name must be shown to be identical or confusingly similar to the name or trademark.
...The website is being used to direct people by reference to a domain name which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s name IAMA to services which compete with the Complainant’s services. ...
2012-10-01 - Case Details
The Complainant alleges that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its distinctive STRATTERA mark because the Domain Name incorporates the mark in its entirety. ...Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established that it has rights to the trademark STRATTERA.
...
2012-08-31 - Case Details
The Complainant states the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its mark and argues that the mere addition of the generic top level domain “.com”, does not significantly affect the confusing similarity. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first factor under paragraph 4(a) requires the Complainant to establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which it has rights.
...
2012-11-30 - Case Details
Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is identical with or confusingly similar to the BEEHIVE Mark, because the Disputed Domain Name contains the entirety of the BEEHIVE Mark.
...Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is identical with or confusingly similar to the BEEHIVE Mark, because the Disputed Domain Name contains the entirety of the BEEHIVE Mark.
...
2012-12-17 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts, inter alia, as follows:
(i) The Domain Names , , , and are identical or confusingly similar to the XSTRATA marks as the Domain Names incorporate the entire well-known XSTRATA mark.
...Consequently, the Panel must proceed with an assessment of the Complaint on its merits.
D. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant registered the XSTRATA trademark in various jurisdictions around the world. ...
2012-08-15 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts that;
(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to trademarks in which it has rights.
In support of this contention, the Complainant relies on, amongst other matters, the two registered trademarks for AMERICAN DYNAMICS referred to above as well as on two stylized trade marks for “AD AMERICAN DYNAMICS”, the earliest of which was filed in 2003. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant owns and is using, trademarks which (once the .com suffix is disregarded) are identical to the disputed domain name. ...
2013-06-28 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant claims first that it is the owner of a well-known Trademark and that the Disputed Domain Names which reproduce the entirety of the Trademark without the addition of any prefix or suffix, only the removal of a hyphen, are confusingly similar to the Trademark.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names because the Respondent has not demonstrated or established rights or a legitimate interest in respect of the Disputed Domain Names. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has rights in the Trademark.
A comparison between the Disputed Domain Names and the Trademark owned by the Complainant shows that the Disputed Domain Names are identical or at least confusingly similar to it to the extent that they reproduce the entirety of the Trademark, whereby, with respect to the second of the Disputed Domain Names (i.e. ...
2015-03-11 - Case Details
Michael Robertson,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0009.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The case record contains ample evidence to demonstrate Complainant’s rights in the registered ROCHE trademark. The Panel determines that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ROCHE mark. The test for determining confusing similarity involves a direct comparison of a complainant’s trademark and the textual string which comprises the domain name. ...
2013-10-30 - Case Details
The Panel also finds that the disputed domain name is either identical or confusingly similar to Complainants’ CANDY CRUSH mark. The disputed domain name incorporates Complainants’ entire registered trademark with the addition of only the descriptive term “secrets”. ...D2002-1115 (addition of generic words “healthcare” to form domain name deemed “confusingly similar to the BAYER trademark”); Aventis Pharma SA., Aventis Pharma Deutschland GmbH v. Jonathan Valicenti,
WIPO Case No. ...
2013-10-18 - Case Details
Consequently, the Panel finds that it is appropriate to issue the Decision in English.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In the present case, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the Complainant owns rights in the WILIER TRIESTINA mark.
...Accordingly, the Panel finds the disputed domain name to be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s WILIER TRIESTINA mark. The Panel thus finds that the Complainant has satisfied its burden of proof under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2013-08-20 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to his well-known O2 trademarks. It is of the opinion that the addition of the geographical indicator “Iran” is not suitable to diminish the degree of confusing similarity, because of its descriptive meaning. ...D2000-1487, where finding of bad faith was given in light of the Complainant’s international recognition precluding innocent registration of a confusingly similar domain name). According to paragraph 2 of the Policy, it is the responsibility of the respondent to determine whether the registration of the disputed domain name infringes or violates someone else’s rights.
...
2013-08-16 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.4 The Domain Name comprises the term "Quickphos", in respect of which the Complainant owns a Community Trade Mark, combined with the ".com" generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD"). In the circumstances, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is at least confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights. As to whether it is identical, see the Panel's comments in Philip Morris USA Inc. v. ...
2014-11-11 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with its registered trademark GOYARD since it incorporates the Complainant’s well-known trademark in its entirety.
...Accordingly, the Panel determines that the language of this administrative proceeding should be English.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2013-12-19 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant contends, in relevant part, as follows:
The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights because “Complainant owns very extensive rights in the VIRGIN mark,” including those set forth in an eight-page schedule provided by Complainant; previous decisions under the Policy (including but not limited to Virgin Enterprises Limited v. ...As to whether the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the VIRGIN mark, the relevant comparison to be made is with the second-level portion of the domain names only (i.e., “virgincare”), as it is well-established that the top-level domain names (i.e., “.com” and “.net”) should be disregarded for this purpose. ...
2013-12-06 - Case Details
This is not an issue relevant under the first limb of the Policy for the reasons discussed in section 5B below, but is relevant to the issues under the second and third limbs of the Policy.
B. 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 name, trade mark or service mark.
There are two parts to this inquiry: the Complainant must demonstrate that it has rights in a name, a trade mark or a service mark and, if so, the disputed domain name must be identical or confusingly similar to it.
The Complainant has proven that it owns the registered trade marks for 99ACRES and 99ACRES.COM in India referred to in Section 4 above.
...
2013-12-05 - Case Details
In addition, the Panel considers it more likely to promote a resolution of the dispute between the parties if the dispute is dealt with on its substantive merits rather than procedural matters.
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.
There are two parts to this inquiry: the Complainant must demonstrate that it has rights in a trademark and, if so, the disputed domain name must be shown to be identical or confusingly similar to the trademark.
The Complainant has proven ownership of the registered trademarks for CARREFOUR identified above.
...
2014-09-24 - Case Details