Accordingly the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered trade mark GTA.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name with its authority, has no obtained any trade mark rights in the complainant’s GTA mark and is not making a legitimate or non-commercial fair use of its mark in the disputed domain name. ...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has developed a very significant reputation in relation to its GRAND THEFT AUTO video game and mark over a number of years and that the mark GTA is an abbreviation referring to this game. ...
2013-02-06 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the three elements is present:
(i) the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent 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
This first element requires that the Complainant demonstrate that (1) it has trademark rights and (2) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2013-04-02 - 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. ...
2013-04-11 - Case Details
With regard to the first element of the Policy, the Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its COUGAR LIFE mark because the disputed domain name is composed of the trademark with the omission of a single letter. ...Accordingly, the Panel thus finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s COUGAR LIFE mark and that the Complainant has established the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2013-03-05 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Names and consist solely of the Complainant’s mark LE FIGARO, and the gTLD “.paris”, save that in the case of a hyphen has been inserted between “le” and “figaro”...As such and are both confusingly similar to the Complainant’s LE FIGARO registered trade mark for the purposes of the Policy. As such the Complainant has satisfied the first limb of the Policy with respect to both Domain Names.
...
2015-03-19 - Case Details
The Response concludes by stating that “We ask you to contact the owner of these domain directly as WantedPlay Limited is not a part in the dispute”.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name incorporates the whole of the Complainant’s registered trademark RED BULL and adds the word “poker” and the gTLD “.com”. ...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 RED BULL trademark. ...
2013-09-12 - Case Details
Accordingly, despite there being no Response, the Panel is obliged to consider the Complainant’s evidence and arguments.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Disputed Domain Name comprises the word BARCLAYS followed by the generic word “bank” followed by the country designator “UK” with the further addition of the “.com” generic Top Level Domain. ...Curious though the Panel is as to why the Complainant provided no evidence of trademark registrations in Malaysia, the Panel is satisfied that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s UK and European Community BARCLAYS trademarks, and that finding is sufficient to make good the first limb of the Policy.
...
2012-04-19 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complaint alleges that the disputed domain names are all identical to or confusingly similar to the registered trademarks PEPE JEANS or PEPE JEANS LONDON. The addition of “uk” does not take away from any confusing similarity. ...All three disputed domain names are clearly confusingly similar to the registered trademark PEPE JEANS. The first part of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is therefore satisfied.
...
2012-05-31 - Case Details
The Panel proceeds to consider these 3 conditions below.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainants clearly have rights in the trade mark DR. MARTENS by virtue of their trade mark registrations. ...In deciding to adopt the Disputed Domain Name, the Respondent must have been aware of the trade mark and that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trade mark. The prominent use of the trade mark DR. MARTENS on the website is consistent with this view.
...
2012-05-25 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that:
1) The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark registrations. The Disputed Domain Name comprises the only characterizing element “drmarten” and the descriptive element “uks” which does not assist to avoid the risk of confusion;
2) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. ...In deciding to adopt the Disputed Domain Name, the Respondent must have been aware that the trade mark and Disputed Domain Name was confusingly similar to the trade mark.
The website, whether previously redirected from or more recently resolved from the Disputed Domain Name, appears to be a parking website. ...
2012-05-21 - Case Details
According to the Complainant, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark INTERTEK and trade name “Intertek”. The entire Domain Name is comprised of the distinctive part of all of the Complainant’s registered trademarks and businesses. ...Considering these conditions, the Panel rules as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it is the owner of a Community Trademark registration for INTERTEK. ...
2012-06-12 - Case Details
Concerning, firstly, the identity or confusing similarity, the Complainant indicates in particular that “when the two components of the disputed domain names are identical to the marks of the Complainant the domain name shall be deemed to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks for the purpose of the UDRP. This confusing similarity is further underlined by the fact that the Complainant often uses the two marks in exactly this combination”.
...Each of these elements will be reviewed separately in the following developments:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name reproduces fully and without any alteration, the trademarks NOVOLOG and FLEXPEN of the Complainant. ...
2012-07-05 - Case Details
Considering these requirements, the Panel rules as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it is the owner of the Trade Mark.
Numerous .nl panels have found that a domain name that wholly incorporates a complainant’s registered mark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for the purpose of the Regulations (see, e.g., Stichting VVV Groep Nederland v. ...DNL2008-0008).
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trade Mark within the meaning of article 2.1(a) of the Regulations. ...
2012-10-10 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant argues that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its registered CSCS mark, and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. ...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 CSCS trademarks registered in the UK and the European Union (EU). ...
2012-11-16 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its AMBIEN trademarks. It stresses the fact that the disputed domain name entirely comprises the trademarks AMBIEN and that the addition of the words “order” and “online” does not avert the confusing similarity between the signs in question, but rather increases the risk of confusion.
...The disputed domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;
B. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
C. ...
2012-11-07 - Case Details
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the three following elements are satisfied:
(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.
...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 in its entirety. ...
2012-11-01 - 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 JACK WOLFSKIN trademark, and that the Complainant has established the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2012-12-24 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which it has rights. It submits that the relevant comparison to be made is with the second-level portion of the disputed domain name, i.e. ...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
On the basis of the evidence referred to above, the Panel is in no doubt that the Complainant is the owner of registered trademark rights in the mark CAT and that these exist in many jurisdictions throughout the world.
...
2012-12-18 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is clearly confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered world famous trademark RBS. The addition of the suffixes “groups” and “financial” as well as the addition of the generic top-level domain “.com” do not impact on the overall impression of the dominant part “rbs” of the disputed domain name. ...B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has shown to have rights in the trademark RBS in many countries, including but not limited to France, where the Respondent is located.
...
2012-12-12 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to 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 the Complainant must first establish that there is a trademark or service mark in which it has rights. ...
2015-03-10 - Case Details