A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the holder of several trademark registrations for trademark containing and/or consisting of OSRAM. ...In accordance with the findings above the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, and the first element of the Policy is thus fulfilled.
...
2015-09-15 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar or identical to the Trade Marks, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be 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 Marks acquired through use and registration.
...
2015-12-01 - Case Details
Complainant states that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark.
With respect to the existence of rights or legitimate interests, the Complaint states that:
- Complainant has never authorized Respondent to use the trademark in the disputed domain name...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has demonstrated ownership of the JACUZZI trademarks registered in several countries around the world, including Respondent’s jurisdiction.
...
2015-11-24 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant argues that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its SUPERMERCADOS ECONO mark and states that it has not given the Respondent permission to use the mark in the Domain Name.
...Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to divest a respondent of a disputed domain name, a complainant must demonstrate each of the following:
(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.
...
2015-11-13 - Case Details
The Complainant also operates subsidiaries in a further 31 countries.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar or identical to the Trademark.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well established that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) may typically be disregarded in the assessment under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy (see e.g., Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2015-08-12 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant submits that “510 Pacific Avenue” is an unregistered common law mark in which the Complainant has rights, and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark. According to the Complainant, 510 Pacific Ave is unique to one property, and has been consistently used for over 50 years to market to the public specific rental property in Venice, California, which was acquired by the Complainant in June 2014. ...International Electronic Communications Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel initially addresses whether the Complainant has established trademark or service mark rights in “510 Pacific Avenue”. ...
2015-08-11 - Case Details
Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has for many years used and sought protection for Complainant’s Trademark in connection with motor racing and an elite motor racing competition. ...In this particular case the Panel finds:
a) Complainant has rights in respect of the Complainant’s Trademark.
b) The Domain Name is at least confusingly similar to Complainant’s Trademark.
Accordingly, the Panel is satisfied that the first element of the Policy has been met.
...
2015-10-20 - Case Details
According to the Complainant the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's TATA trademark. If not identical, then it is at least confusingly similar. The incorporation and use of the mark TATA in the disputed domain name would be taken to refer to the Complainant, as TATA is a registered and well-known trademark, the Complainant asserts. ...Therefore the Panel holds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's TATA trademark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent, upon receipt of its Notice of Respondent Default, in correspondence with the Center expressly chose not to request an extension of time within which to file a Response. ...
2015-10-16 - Case Details
Lastly, it says that it has invested resources in building its website.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated that it owns registered trade mark rights in the FAREPORTAL mark as set out above. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s FAREPORTAL registered trade mark.
The fact that the Complainant is also the registered proprietor of the CHEAPOAIR mark and that the first element of this mark has been incorporated by the Respondent into the disputed domain name is relevant to the Panel’s discussion of registration in bad faith under the third element of the Policy.
...
2015-10-14 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its common law FENCE4EVER 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 first element of a UDRP complaint “serves essentially as a standing requirement” and entails “a straightforward visual or aural comparison of the trademark with the alphanumeric string in the domain name”. ...
2017-01-26 - Case Details
The Panel thus determines the language of the proceeding shall be English and the decision will be rendered in English.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has produced sufficient evidence to prove that it is the registered proprietor of the trademark GO SPORT around the world.
...Accordingly, the Panel holds the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark GO SPORT, and the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2017-01-26 - Case Details
Summarizing its legal contentions, Complainant alleges that (1) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks, (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and (3) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, all in violation of the Policy.
...Michael Robertson,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0009).
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel agrees that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s trademarks in the sense of the Policy.
...
2017-01-20 - Case Details
The Panel will have to determine whether Complainant's prima facie case meets the requirements of article 2.1 of the Regulations.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The threshold test for confusing similarity under the Policy involves a comparison between the trademark and the domain name to assess whether the trademark is recognizable within the domain name. ...Many decisions under the Regulations have found that a domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant's trademark where the domain name incorporates the trademark in its entirety.
...
2017-07-14 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements:
(i) the 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 Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant must demonstrate that it has rights in a trademark or service mark and, if so, the domain name must be shown to be identical or confusingly similar to that mark.
...
2018-05-30 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark 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.
...Having considered the Complaint and the available evidence, the Panel finds the following:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry – a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trade mark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trade mark.
...
2018-05-25 - Case Details
Complainant contends that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s Mark and Complainant’s own domain name and website address as “www.invisionapp.com” (“Complainant’s domain name”). ...b) The Domain Names are for all intents and purposes the same as Complainant’s Mark; but certainly confusingly similar.
Accordingly, the Panel is satisfied that the first element of the Policy has been met.
...
2018-05-24 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, and the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
...Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be 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 acquired through use and registration.
...
2016-10-20 - Case Details
The Domain Name and the Complainants’ trademarks are therefore identical or at least confusingly similar.
The Complainants further contend that the Respondent has not been licensed or authorized to use the trademark HUGO BOSS or to apply for any domain name incorporating the trademark. ...Accordingly, the Panel holds the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainants’ trademark HUGO BOSS, and the Complainants have satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2016-12-21 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights in the ROLAND GARROS trade mark, based on its international trade mark registration.
...It is also well established that in making an enquiry as to whether a trade mark is identical or confusingly similar to a domain name, the generic top-level domain extensions, in this case ".club" and ".stream", may be disregarded (see Rohde & Schwarz GmbH & Co. ...
2016-11-28 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its FRENCH CHEW mark because it consists only of Complainant’s mark in its entirety.
...The disputed domain name is therefore identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s FRENCH CHEW mark. See Fairview Commercial Lending, Inc. v. Aleksandra Pesalj,
WIPO Case No. ...
2016-08-08 - Case Details