Complainant
The Complainant’s submissions may be summarized as follows:
- It has well-established registered and common law rights in the trademark ETVNET. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar thereto. In this respect the Complainant submits that for the purpose of comparison, the letters “www” do not serve to dispel confusion and constitute a form of typosquatting, citing Humana Inc. v HYRO FZ-LLC,
WIPO Case No. ...The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has rights in the trademark ETVNET and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to it.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has asserted that it has not authorized the Respondent (whoever that might actually be) to register or use the disputed domain name. ...
2011-07-06 - Case Details
Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has since 1996 run a hotel operation in the United States of America, with over 40,000 rooms. ...By adopting a domain name that wholly incorporates Complainant’s Trademark and which conveys the same overall impression as Complainant’s Trademark, Respondent has registered and used a term confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.
Accordingly, this element is made out by Complainant.
B. ...
2011-06-29 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not formally reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has since 1996 run a hotel operation in the United States of America, with over 40,000 rooms. ...By adopting a domain name that wholly incorporates Complainant’s Trademark and which conveys the same overall impression as Complainant’s Trademark, Respondent has registered and used a term confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.
Accordingly, this element is made out by Complainant.
B. ...
2011-07-11 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant contends (in accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy) that each Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar with the TORUS Mark in which it has rights; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in any Disputed Domain Name; and that Respondent registered and uses each Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.
...Since Respondent has not submitted any evidence, the Panel will render its decision on the basis of the uncontroverted evidence supplied by Complainant.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant contends that it has rights in the TORUS Mark and that each Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar thereto.
...
2011-12-08 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel has no doubt that “flender” is a term directly connected with the Flender Company, which has recently merged with the Complainant (Annex 5 to the Complaint).
...As a result, the Panel finds the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, and that the Complainant has proven the first element of the Policy.
...
2011-12-02 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainants consider the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the trademarks in which they claim to have rights. Complainants further claim that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. ...The Panel will deal with each of these requirements in turn.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element, Complainants must first establish that there is a trademark or service mark in which they have rights. ...
2012-08-06 - Case Details
They allege that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to trade marks in which they have rights.
The Complainant also alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and has provided arguments in support of this allegation, with reference to a number of prior UDRP decisions in this connection.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel in this case finds that the Complainant’s trade mark CASER, either alone or in combination with SEGUROS, is well known in Spain, and known abroad.
...
2012-02-06 - Case Details
With regard to the first element of the Policy, the Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered trademark HICKORY FARMS, and that the addition of the gTLD “.info” and the dictionary terms “coupons” and “codes” do not dispel such similarity.
...The Panel thus finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's HICKORY FARMS trademark and that the Complainant has established the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2012-02-02 - Case Details
In accordance with the consensus view, the Panel does not regard the top-level suffix “.com” when deciding if the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. In accordance with this, the disputed domain name and the registered trademark ARMANI only differ by the generic, and of the Respondent’s business descriptive, word “store”. ...In accordance with the findings above, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered ARMANI trademark in the meaning of the paragraph 4(a)(i) and the first element of the Policy is thus fulfilled.
...
2012-02-01 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered trade mark INTERCONTINENTAL because it consists of the Complainant’s well-known mark with the addition of the generic word “hotel” and the geographic identifier “london”.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant provided evidence that it has prior registered rights in the mark INTERCONTINENTAL in the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia Pacific. ...
2012-01-26 - Case Details
In accordance with paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted 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 owns several trademark registrations for KAREN MILLEN, as noted under Section 4, “Factual Background” above.
...In view of the foregoing, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights, and therefore, the Complainant has succeeded on this first element under the Policy.
...
2012-02-20 - Case Details
In accordance with paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted 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 owns several trademark registrations for KAREN MILLEN, as noted under Section 4, “Factual Background” above.
...In view of the foregoing, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights, and therefore, the Complainant has succeeded on this first element under the Policy.
...
2012-02-20 - Case Details
Parties Contentions
5.A. Complainants
5.A.1 Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is identical to six of the seven Complainants’ registered trademarks set out in paragraph 4.A.2 above. ...That is, the Policy expressly recognizes that other circumstances can be evidence relevant the requirements of paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and (iii) of the Policy.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.5 The Complainants have demonstrated rights in the registered DR. MARTENS and DOC MARTENS trademarks. ...
2011-10-21 - Case Details
The Complainant further contends that the disputed domain names are clearly confusingly similar to the Complainant's LEGO trademark and that confusion with it may result in tarnishment, dilution and other damage to the mark.
...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has shown clearly that it has long established and extensive rights in its trademark LEGO and has done so on many previous cases under the Policy. ...
2011-10-06 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent has not made any substantive response to the Complaint and has not contested any of the Complainant’s evidence or submissions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has clearly demonstrated and substantiated its rights in the name and trademark BUDGET DIRECT. ...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a name and trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use the name and trademark BIUDGET DIRECT in the disputed domain name. ...
2012-07-10 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its MASTERCARD and MASTERCARD INCONTROL trademarks. It stresses the fact that the litigious domain name entirely comprises the trademarks “MASTERCARD” and “MASTERCARD INCONTROL”.
...The disputed domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;
B. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
C. ...
2012-05-04 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name the Complainant must prove that:
(i) the 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 or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has well-established, uncontroverted rights in the trademark SOFITEL in a number of territories including Australia. ...
2012-04-30 - Case Details
The Domain Name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
B. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
C. The Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant holds several word and word/device trademarks for LEGO which are registered, among other things, for toys in class 28, in particular in Europe and in the U.S.. ...
2012-03-07 - Case Details
The Domain Names registered by Respondent are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;
B. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
C. The Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant holds several word and word/device trademarks LEGO which are registered, among other things, for toys in class 28, in particular in the United States. ...
2012-03-07 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that it owns registered trade mark rights as noted above dating from February 12, 2008 and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its FROSTWIRE mark as it wholly incorporates the term “frostwire” and the addition of the term “review” does nothing to distinguish the disputed domain name from its mark.
...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant owns a combined word and device mark registration for its FROSTWIRE mark in the US under registration number 3381297 dating from February, 12, 2008.
...
2012-06-18 - Case Details