A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has demonstrated rights through registration and use of the MYLÉ mark.
The Panel finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the MYLÉ trademark of Complainant.
page 3
The first Domain Name is phonetically identical to Complainant’s mark and leads to a website mimicking that
of Complainant and prominently displaying Complainant’s mark affirming the confusing similarity. ...
2023-01-24 - Case Details
The Complainant’s trade mark has been continuously and actively used since 1946.
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark, which it
incorporates in its entirety.
The Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established registered rights in the mark METCO, as well as unregistered trade mark
rights deriving from the Complainant’s use of that mark.
...
2023-01-09 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the trademark QATARENERGY through registration and
use demonstrated in the record. The Panel also concludes that the Domain Names are confusingly similar
to that mark. The QATARENERGY mark is clearly recognizable within the Domain Names, and the
additional words “vendor” and “contract” do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the mark
and the Domain Names.
...
2022-11-01 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant made the following contentions to establish that the disputed domain name is confusingly
page 3
similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The disputed domain name consists solely of
BMW and adds the ccTLD “.com.ge”. ...page 4
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Once the ccTLD “.com.ge” is ignored (which is appropriate in this case), the disputed domain name consists
solely of the Complainant’s registered word trademark BMW.
...
2023-03-23 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant essentially contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks
for MICHELIN, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain
name, and that the disputed domain name was registered, and is being used in bad faith.
...Based on the evidence and arguments submitted, the Panel’s findings are as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has provided sufficient evidence that it has valid rights in the mark
MICHELIN, based on its use and registration of the same as a trademark.
...
2023-03-20 - Case Details
Based on the evidence and arguments submitted, the Panel’s findings are as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has shown that it has valid rights in the mark UNILEVER, based on its intensive use and registration of the same as trademarks in a large number of jurisdictions.
Moreover, as to whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark, the disputed domain name consists of only the Complainant’s registered trademark for UNILEVER, followed by the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), “.shop”. ...
2021-11-02 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel permits this Complaint to proceed in the form in which it was filed.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Once the gTLD “.com” is ignored (which is appropriate in this case), each disputed domain name consists of the whole of the Complainant’s registered word trademark CARVANA, followed by either “markt” or “markts”, which are the German words for “market” and “markets”, respectively. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondents are not licensees of the Complainant, are not otherwise affiliated with the Complainant, and have not been authorized by the Complainant to use its CARVANA word trademark. ...
2021-11-01 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence provided, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the IQOS 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.
...
2021-09-08 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s TMALL trademarks, as it incorporates the TMALL mark in its entirety. ...However, references to the Respondent shall include any actions by the beneficial holder regarding the Domain Name.
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element of a UDRP complaint “functions primarily as a standing requirement” and entails “a straightforward comparison between the complainant’s trademark and the domain name”. ...
2021-06-28 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP requires Complainant to make out all three of the following:
(i) the disputed 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 disputed domain name; and
(iii) Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...In comparing Complainant’s LINKEDIN mark with the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. The disputed domain name consists of an obvious misspelling of Complainant’s mark. ...
2021-07-06 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the MIDEA trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
Further, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names. ...Under these circumstances, the Panel finds it more appropriate and fair to render this decision in English.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complaint clearly has trademark rights to MIDEA, and has been using this mark extensively throughout the world. ...
2021-06-23 - Case Details
and which bank information (IBAN and etc)?”
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Once the gTLD “.com” is ignored (which is appropriate in this case), the disputed domain name consists of the whole of the Complainant’s registered word trademark INSTA followed by a hyphen and the word “shark”. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is not a licensee of, or otherwise affiliated with, the Complainant, and has not been authorized by the Complainant to use its INSTA word trademark. ...
2021-08-27 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy sets forth the following three requirements, which have to be met for this Panel to order the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant:
(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.
...In accordance with paragraph 14(a) of the Rules, if the Respondent does not submit a Response, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall decide the dispute based upon the Complaint.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established its rights in the registered PANAVISION trademark.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name only differs by a hyphen to the Complainant’s trademark and is therefore confusingly similar to it. ...
2021-08-26 - Case Details
According to section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark the domain name will normally be considered identical or confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing. The Panel finds that in the present case the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety without any additions.
...According to section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. ...
2021-04-22 - Case Details
Complainant
5.1 The Complainant refers to its business and trade marks and refers to a number of previous UDRP cases in which it has been involved in which it is said the fame and reputation of its MICHELIN mark was recognised. It contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its trade mark.
5.2 The Complainant refers to the way in which the Domain Name has been used since registration for a website that offers for sale meals and food. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.4 The Complainant has satisfied the Panel that it has registered trade rights in the term “Michelin”. ...
2021-04-29 - Case Details
Complainant
5.1 The Complainant refers to its business and trade marks and refers to previous UDRP cases in which it has been involved where it is said the fame and reputation of its MICHELIN mark was recognised. It contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its trade mark and that the Respondent in choosing the Domain Name intended an association with the Complainant.
5.2 The Complainant refers to the way in which the Domain Name has been used since registration. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.4 The Complainant has satisfied the Panel that it has registered trade mark rights in the term “Michelin”. ...
2021-05-10 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that its registered trademark is prominent and present in its entirety in the disputed domain name, which is therefore confusingly similar to the trademark. The additional dictionary terms “clearance” and “sale” are insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s trademark.
...The dispute is properly within the scope of the Policy and the Panel has jurisdiction to decide the dispute.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has produced evidence satisfactory to the Panel of its ownership of the registered trademark 2XU.
...
2021-04-14 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which it has rights because: (i) the disputed domain name comprises the Complainant’s THERMOMIX trademark in its entirety as its leading element, together with the descriptive term “online” under the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”; (ii) the addition of the descriptive term “online” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity with the Complainant’s THERMOMIX trademark, which remains clearly recognizable as the leading element of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the applicable gTLD can be disregarded as it is viewed as a standard registration requirement.
...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is not a licensee of, or otherwise affiliated with, the Complainant, and has not been authorized by the Complainant to use its THERMOMIX trademark. ...
2021-06-01 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-03-10 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical and confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s registered and well-recognized trademark NAVI as the disputed domain name subsumes the
trademark NAVI in its entirety. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-02-25 - Case Details