Complainant
The Complainant contends that:
1) The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark WALMART. The trademark WALMART is famous and instantly recognizable. ...Pursuant to the discretion empowered to the Panel by paragraph 11 of the Rules, the Panel grants the Complainant’s request having regard to the circumstances as follows:
1) The Respondent is associated with many domain name registrations incorporating English language phrases (e.g., );
2) The Respondent’s name does not appear to be that of a Chinese individual or company;
3) The website resolved from the Disputed Domain Name is entirely in English;
4) The Respondent has not participated in the proceeding by filing a Response;
5) The Respondent has not objected to the Complainant’s request for English to be adopted as the language of the proceeding;
6) The Complaint has already been filed in English and the Complainant would incur substantial additional expense for translations should Chinese be maintained as the language of the proceeding; and
7) Requiring Chinese translations would lead to unnecessary delay in the proceeding.
6.2 Discussion
The Complainant must satisfy the Panel that all three limbs of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are established on the facts.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first limb of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. ...
2015-01-06 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant considers the disputed domain name to be identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks and service marks in which it claims to have rights. The Complainant further claims that the 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, Complainant must first establish that there is a trademark or service mark in which it has rights. ...
2015-01-06 - Case Details
The Panel gives the following reasons for its decision.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant proves that it has rights in the trademark LECLERC based on different trademark registrations. ...The Panel is of the opinion that applying these principles to this case, the disputed domain names should be considered confusingly similar to the trademarks.
Therefore, the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is met.
...
2015-02-05 - Case Details
Complainant
According to the Complainant, the Domain Name is confusingly similar with the Trade Marks, as the element AUSTRIAN AIRLINES is the dominant part both of the Domain Name and the Trade Marks.
...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has shown that it has rights in the Trade Marks. The Trade Marks consist of or contain as dominant element the name AUSTRIAN AIRLINES. ...
2014-12-08 - Case Details
The Complainant further asserts that the disputed domain name is substantially identical and confusingly similar to its PENTAIR trademark because it incorporates the key element of the mark, merely adding the letter “e” thereto. ...In accordance with paragraph 14(b) 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 its PENTAIR trademark, duly registered in the United States of America as well as several countries around the world (Annexes 5 and 6 to the Complaint).
...
2015-02-13 - Case Details
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that a complainant must prove each of the following:
(1) that the domain name registered by respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(2) that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...At the same time, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, if a party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any provision of, or requirement under, the Rules, or any request from the Panel, the Panel shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar (in the sense of the Policy) to the Complainant’s registered trademark because it contains the mark NIVEA in its entirety. ...
2015-06-12 - Case Details
Considering the facts of the dispute, although the language of the Registration Agreement is Turkish, the Panel determines in accordance with the Rules, paragraph 11(a) that the language of these administrative proceedings shall be the English language.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademarks MICHELIN and CROSSCLIMATE in its entirety.
...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademarks MICHELIN and CROSSCLIMATE, as a result, finds that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is met.
...
2015-06-30 - Case Details
The Complainant's contention is that:
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its mark;
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name;
The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...For the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a non-exhaustive list of circumstances that shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name incorporates the Complainant's mark entirely into the Respondent's domain name. ...
2010-08-13 - Case Details
The Complainant further contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to his alleged mark, noting that it differs from that mark only in the omission of hyphens.
...The Respondent draws attention to differences in the content of the parties' websites and submits that they are not confusingly similar.
The Respondent contends that he has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. ...
2010-02-15 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts as follows:
(i) The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's SHERATON trade mark as it consists of nothing more than the said trade mark, the geographical term “Nha Trang” and the generic top level domain, “.com”. ...His repeated offers to sell the disputed domain names constitute evidence of use in bad faith. The registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a famous trade mark by an entity that has no relationship to that mark is also evidence of use in bad faith.
...
2010-02-02 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BBVA and BBVA Compass trademarks, the addition of “experience” doing nothing to dispel the confusion.
...Against that background, the Panel’s formal findings and reasoning follow.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Disputed Domain Name plainly includes the Complainant’s primary trade mark, BBVA. ...
2010-11-09 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks PANTAENIUS, Complainant’s company name and Complainant’s domain names, as the only difference between the Complainant’s trademarks and names is the omission of the letter “a” in the second syllable.
...On comparing the Complainant’s trademarks with the Disputed Domain Name, the Panel finds that the latter is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, and as such the first element of the Policy is satisfied. ...
2010-11-04 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements that the Complainant must prove to merit a finding that the domain name of the Respondent be transferred to the Complainant or be cancelled:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark (“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
It is well established in decisions under the UDRP that indicators (.com, .info, .net, .org) are legally irrelevant to the consideration of confusing similarity between a trade mark and a domain name. ...
2010-12-09 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
By virtue of its long and extensive use, the COMMUNITY AMERICA CREDIT UNION mark has become well-known, and it is one of the best known trade marks in the credit unions field. ...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established common law rights in the mark COMMUNITY AMERICA CREDIT UNION arising from its extensive use in the United States since 1998.
...
2010-12-06 - Case Details
Complainant
- The Domain Name is identical to the Complainant's word only mark 2,451,351 and trading name, and confusingly similar to the Complainant's logo mark 2,451,348;
- The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. ...A complainant must prove each of these three elements.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name incorporates the Complainant's trade mark in its entirety. The suffix “info” is to be disregarded for comparison purposes. ...
2010-07-15 - Case Details
Complainant
By entirely reproducing the Complainant’s trade mark ACCOR, the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trade mark. The added generic element “hotels” only maintains a likelihood of confusion in the mind of Internet users, describing the Complainant’s main business, thus making believe that the domain name belongs to the Complainant. ...Discussion and Findings
The factual foundation of the Complainant’s contentions, as presented in great detail by the Complainant, while supporting its non contradicted claim by written evidence and ample reference to earlier UDRP case decisions, allows the Panel to deal summarily with the case.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
For above-referenced reasons given by the Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered and widely known trade mark ACCOR, equaling its corporate name.
...
2011-01-26 - 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 trademark registrations for TURKCELL.
The disputed domain name incorporates the trademark TURKCELL in its entirety.
...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.
...
2011-01-13 - Case Details
Policy, paragraph 4(a).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based upon the trademark registrations cited by Complainant, it is apparent that Complainant has rights in and to the JUILLIARD Trademark.
As to whether the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the JUILLIARD Trademark, the relevant comparison to be made is with the second-level portion of the domain name only (i.e., “juilliard”), as it is well-established that the top-level domain name (i.e., “.me”) should be disregarded for this purpose. ...
2012-03-28 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that, in order to be successful with respect to a disputed domain name, the Complainant has the burden of providing that all three elements are present in the Complaint, namely:
(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances each of which, if proven, shall demonstrate the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) above.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is almost identical and certainly confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark ALEGENT HEALTH, in which the Complainant has established that it has rights.
...
2012-03-06 - Case Details
Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant owns and has rights in the WALMART Marks. The disputed domain name fully and completely incorporates at least one of the WALMART Marks. The addition of the generic word “ticket” to the incorporated WALMART Mark does not change the fact that the WALMART Mark is fully incorporated and the disputed domain name, as a whole, is confusingly similar to the WALMART Marks.
The Panel finds the disputed domain name to be identical or confusingly similar to the WALMART Marks and that this element of the Policy has been met by Complainant.
...
2012-02-24 - Case Details