The Respondent has generated income by hosting these sponsored links on the Website.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name comprises and is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.
No Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and does not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
...Discussion and Findings
The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 6(a) of the Policy in order to prevail.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark acquired through use and registration which predate the date of registration of the disputed domain name by several years.
...
2012-06-08 - Case Details
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its ACCOR trademark because it combines its ACCOR trademark with the term “online”, a term which Complainant cites as generic.
...Translation of the complaint and other materials would cause unnecessary delay.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name combines Complainant’s ACCOR service mark with the term “online”. ...
2012-03-26 - Case Details
Complainant
In summary, Complainant contends the following:
- The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to trademarks or service marks in which Complainant has rights.
- Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has evidenced that it has rights in the EPSON trademark. (See section 4 above.)
...
2010-09-30 - Case Details
These elements are that:
(i) respondent's domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which complainant has rights; and
(ii) respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) respondent's domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Each of the aforesaid three elements must be proved by a complainant to warrant relief.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant is asserting U.S. federal common law rights in the trademark SATELLITEDIRECT based on use in commerce on the Internet in connection with sales of computer software. ...
2010-08-13 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its PLATON registered trade mark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name and that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy.
...B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name comprises the Complainant's registered trade mark PLATON and the generic “.com” top-level domain suffix. ...
2010-08-10 - Case Details
Under paragraph 15(a) of the Rules:
“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.”
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant indisputably holds SWAROVSKI marks, and the Domain Name is identical to those marks. (The “.uk.com” element of the Domain Name is not distinctive or relevant for the determination that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks). Thus, the Panel finds that the first element of the Complaint has been established.
...
2010-12-08 - Case Details
Complainants
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the REVLON mark, because it consists of the Complainant's well-known registered trade mark REVLON together with the common descriptive term “beauty”.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is the Complainant's well-known trade mark REVLON together with the word “beauty”.
...
2010-08-02 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In order to succeed under the first element of the Policy, the Complainant must demonstrate both its rights in the relevant trademark, and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to said trademark.
...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MUNDOANUNCIO trademark, and that the Complainant has established the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2012-09-20 - Case Details
It contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered trademark rights and that, terms like “advisors”, “financial” and “investments” are commonly and descriptively used in the financial advisory market are descriptive.
3. ...It follows that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the registered trademarks over which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant succeeds in this element.
...
2012-09-05 - Case Details
With regard to the first element of the Policy, the Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its SWAROVSKI mark, since the addition of the dictionary terms “crystal,” “UK,” and “sale” do not adequately distinguish the domain name.
...The Panel thus finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's SWAROVSKI mark and that the Complainant has established the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2013-01-31 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There is no dispute that Complainant holds longstanding rights in the mark GUDRUN SJODEN (either with the accent marks or without) through registration and through use, some of which is conducted on the Internet with a website whose domain name does not include the accent marks. ...There are many prior decisions under the Policy holding that a “wwwmark.com” domain name is held to be confusingly similar to the mark in question. See, e.g., Pig Improvement Company, Inc. v. Platinum Net, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2012-11-23 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...The Panel determines that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark AIDA. The mere attachment of a generic term to a protected mark does not defeat confusing similarity.
...
2012-11-20 - Case Details
The Complainant sells its watches under the Trade Mark in China only via authorised retailers.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. It comprises the Trade Mark in its entirety.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. ...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name, which contains the Trade Mark in its entirety, is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.
The Panel therefore holds that the Complaint fulfills the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2013-04-22 - Case Details
In relation to element (i) of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are either identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks İSTANBUL BORSASI, İSTANBUL MENKUL KIYMETLER BORSASI, BORSA İSTANBUL.
...As a result, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainants’ service marks.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has not provided evidence of, or even asserted the existence of, circumstances of the type specified in paragraphs 4(c)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Policy, being circumstances which demonstrate a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names.
...
2013-04-16 - Case Details
They are, with appropriate amendments, set out below for completeness.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant’s trademark is, and has been for many years, a well-known trademark in the field of cut crystal, jewelry and other luxury items. ...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant asserts that it has no connection or affiliation with the Respondent and has not given any licence or authority to the Respondent to use the trademark SWAROVSKI in the disputed domain name. ...
2013-04-12 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to trademarks in which
Complainant has rights, in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-09-09 - Case Details
Considering these conditions, the Panel rules as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
With regard to the assessment of identity or confusing similarity, it is generally accepted that this test
involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the
disputed domain name (see section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP
Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”))1. .../Alfred Meijboom/
Alfred Meijboom
Panelist
Date: November 23, 2022
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Case No. DNL2022-0040
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith...
2022-11-24 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade
Mark; the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and the
disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Discussion and Findings
The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark acquired through use and registration.
...
2022-11-08 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its reputable
NOVAGOLD trademark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name,
and the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...The Panel will further analyze the potential concurrence of the above circumstances.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant holds rights in the NOVAGOLD trademark.
The disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s trademark exactly.
...
2022-08-04 - Case Details
The Complainant must evidence each of the three elements required by paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order
to succeed on the Complaint, namely that:
(i) the disputed 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 disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established rights in the ELECTROLUX trademark.
The disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s ELECTROLUX followed by the gTLD “.homes”.
...
2022-12-02 - Case Details