Complainant
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s KABBAGE mark. The Complainant explains that the relevant comparison to be made is with the second-level portion of the disputed domain name, and that the generic Top-Level Domain Name (“gTLD”) “.com” is disregarded for this purpose. ...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 KABBAGE mark, in which the Complainant has established rights through registration and use. ...
2020-03-11 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the NESTLÉ mark.
...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant has satisfied the first element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2020-03-09 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is established case law that the country code Top-Level domain “.nl” may be disregarded in assessing the similarity between the Trademarks on the one hand, and the disputed domain name on the other hand (see, e.g., Roompot Recreatie Beheer B.V. v. ...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trademarks for which reason the requirement of article 2.1.a of the Regulations has been met.
...
2020-09-23 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has rights to a trademark or service mark as reflected in the Trademark.
A comparison between the Disputed Domain Name and the Trademark shows that the Disputed Domain Name can be considered as confusingly similar to the Trademark, because the Trademark is clearly recognizable within the Disputed Domain Name to which the term “socodis” has been added.
...
2020-11-05 - Case Details
See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. The Doman Name is confusingly similar to the claimed EVERGREEN REVIEW mark, lacking only the unpronounced space between words (which cannot be included in the Domain Name System for technical reasons), and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is disregarded as a standard registration requirement. ...This example could encompass PPC advertising using a domain name confusingly similar to a trademark.
The examples given in paragraph 4(b) are not exclusive, and the Complainant suggests that the Respondent, in league with the “disgruntled” former publisher Ms. ...
2020-11-05 - Case Details
On the basis of the arguments and evidence introduced by the Complainant, the Panel concludes as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights in MILLIMAN by virtue of its use and registration of the same as a trade mark.
...Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark.
Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of the first element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2020-09-14 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that:
(1) The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks because they contain 인스타 (the Korean transliteration of “insta”) or INSTA mark in its entirety. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name <인스타고수.com> (xn--299ak61b7lao3nqon.com) incorporates the Complainant’s 인스타 trademark in its entirety with the addition of the dictionary term “고수” (English transliteration “gosu”). ...
2020-10-22 - Case Details
In the circumstances, there is no reason for the default rule under the Rules not to apply.
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 trademark in Switzerland for PLAY SUISSE referred to in section 4 above.
...
2020-10-12 - Case Details
Second, although the Complainant does not own a registered trademark identical or confusingly similar to the disputed domain name, it claims to have right to the “CV Timeline” unregistered mark. ...See section 4.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under this head, the Complainant is required to show that it has UDRP-relevant rights for purposes of standing to bring a case and secondly that such trademark is identical or confusingly similar to the disputed domain name. ...
2021-01-06 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the MAISON DECOR trademark.
...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant has satisfied the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2019-11-28 - Case Details
With reference to the circumstances evidencing bad faith, the Complainant asserts that by registering the disputed domain name, confusingly similar to both the trademark ENTONOX and the Complainant’s domain name , the Respondent has demonstrated prior knowledge and familiarity with the Complainant’s trademark and business.
...Paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(i) of the ADR Rules determines that the Panel shall issue a decision granting the remedies requested in the event that the Complainant proves “The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized by the national law of a Member State and/or Community law”.
...
2020-01-13 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided evidence of his ownership of an Andorran trademark registration, THOMAS LEEN.
...The Panel finds the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2020-01-09 - 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 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 with respect to the domain name; and
(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...See section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names and are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known FACEBOOK and FB marks, in which the Complainant has demonstrated rights through registration and use. ...
2019-12-30 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant makes the following submissions.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant was founded and first started using the trade mark MATILDA JANE with clothing in 2004. ...In this case, the Panel finds that the Complainant is not barred from bringing the Complaint by reason of its delay.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.
...
2019-11-21 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the trademark CORIOLISS in which the Complainant has rights since November 20, 2018, as they both reproduce the trademark in its entirety with the mere addition of the geographical indicator “Europe" in one of the two cases and of the generic Top-Level domain (“gTLD) “.com” in both cases.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established rights over the trademark CORIOLISS based on the trademark registrations cited under section 4 above and the Trademark Assignment Deed signed with the Respondents on November 20, 2018, copy of which is submitted as Annex 2 to the Complaint.
...
2020-02-14 - Case Details
Complainant
The disputed domain name is identical or at least confusingly similar to the Complainant’s OSRAM trademark. The additional letter “e” is insufficient to prevent Internet user confusion.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the OSRAM mark.
...
2019-07-04 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its common law GREAT AMERICAN HOTEL GROUP mark, which the Respondent lacks permission to use and in which the Respondent otherwise has no rights or legitimate interests.
...Thus, it may safely be concluded that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the first element of the Policy.
...
2019-09-03 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a), the Complainant must prove each of the following to justify the transfer of the disputed domain name:
(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 disputed domain name; and
(iii) the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...In view of the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the OZ LOTTO trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, UDRP panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often-impossible task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. ...
2019-08-28 - Case Details
Having considered all circumstances of this case, the Panel concludes under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that English shall be the language of the proceeding.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant owns exclusive rights in the CALVIN KLEIN Trademark, which sufficiently predate the registration of the Disputed Domain Name.
...Previous UDRP panels have recognized that incorporation of a trademark in its entirety is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered mark; see bridport & cie S.A v. Privatewhois.net, Private Whois bridportadvisory.com,
WIPO Case No. ...
2019-09-12 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant says that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which it has rights. It refers to its service mark for ACCC INSURANCE COMPANY, full details of which are given above, and says that it has been using and promoting this mark for over twenty years. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has produced evidence of its service mark registration for ACCC INSURANCE COMPANY, as more particularly set out above.
...
2019-06-17 - Case Details