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
Substantive Elements of the Policy
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.
...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark and that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2022-03-11 - Case Details
The Complainant’s mark is known worldwide and is very famous.
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established rights in the mark ZALO by virtue of its registered trade marks as well as unregistered trade mark rights deriving from its extensive worldwide use of that mark.
...
2022-03-21 - Case Details
Adding a generic word describing Complainant’s services to Complainant’s trademark results in a confusingly similar domain name under the Policy.
Complainant began acquiring rights in its CINTAS trademark in the United States in 1973 when it first started using the brand. ...Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has demonstrated it owns registered trademark rights in the CINTAS trademark in the United States. ...
2022-03-17 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
First of all, the Panel finds that the Complainant has provided evidence that it has rights in the CREDIT MUTUEL Trademarks.
...Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. The first element of the paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is thus fulfilled.
...
2022-02-03 - Case Details
Complainant
The Disputed Domain Name is identical or at least confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark CASINO DE MONACO all the more in the field of gambling given their identical term “Monaco”, which comprises Complainant’s trademark CASINO DE MONACO.
...Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has demonstrated it owns the registered trademark rights in the globally famous CASINO DE MONACO trademark. ...
2022-02-10 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has demonstrated rights through registration and use on the SANOFI mark.
...D2002-0122).
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the SANOFI mark of Complainant.
Complainant has established the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2022-02-09 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark; that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
...Accordingly, conditions for proper consolidation of the disputed domain names into one matter are present here.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied: (i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights, (ii) the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, and (iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. ...
2022-03-07 - 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
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the trademark GILEAD through registration and use
demonstrated in the record. The Panel also concludes that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to that
mark. The GILEAD mark is clearly recognizable within the Domain Name, and the additional word “health”
does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the mark and the Domain Name.
...
2022-09-26 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed the Complainant must satisfy the Panel that:
(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 disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusing similar to the Complainant’s Mark. ...
2022-09-20 - Case Details
Substantive Elements of the Policy
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.
...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 4
B. ...
2022-10-26 - Case Details
The Respondent did
not provide any evidence supporting the contentions in the Response.
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...
2025-08-29 - Case Details
Under the Policy, the Complainant must prove that:
(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 disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well established that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” should typically be disregarded in
the assessment under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2023-11-15 - 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. ...Accordingly, the disputed
domain name is or confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0,
section 1.7.
While the addition of other terms here, gTLD “com”, may bear on assessment of the second and third
elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between
the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2023-11-02 - 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.
...Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines that:
(i) it will accept the filing of the Amended Complaint in French ; and
(ii) it will render this Decision in English.
6.2 Substantive Elements of the Policy
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.
The disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the Trade Mark (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section
1.7), followed by the letters “fr” (separated by a hyphen).
...
2023-11-02 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its SITECORE
trademark.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed
domain name. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it is the owner of registered trademark rights in respect of the mark
SITECORE. ...
2023-11-27 - 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...
2023-11-22 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s trademark AUTOCAD, since it reproduces the mark in its entirety with the addition of the suffix
“keygen”, which is short for the generic term “key generator”.
...September 21, 2023).
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2023-11-21 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Under the Policy, paragraph 4(a), the Complainant must prove that each of the following three elements is
present:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark; 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 disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the SKYSCANNER Mark as it contains such trademark
in its entirety, merely adding the English word “is”. ...
2023-11-20 - Case Details