A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the trademark JAXXON through registration and use
demonstrated in the record. The Panel also concludes that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the
JAXXON mark. The entire mark is incorporated within the Domain Name, and the additional word “watches”
does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the mark and the Domain Name.
...
2022-05-06 - Case Details
The Respondent did not submit a formal Response.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
First of all, the Panel finds that the Complainant has provided evidence that it has prior rights in the VEEPEE Trademark.
...Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademark. The first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is thus fulfilled.
...
2022-02-22 - Case Details
In considering these elements, paragraph 15(a) of the Rules provides that the Panel shall decide the Complaint on the basis of statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules, and any other rules or principles of law that the Panel deems applicable.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
First of all, the Panel finds that the Complainant has provided evidence that it has rights on the SODEXHO and SODEXO Trademarks.
...Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. The first element of the paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is thus fulfilled.
...
2022-01-21 - 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.
...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.
...
2022-01-20 - Case Details
It says that the disputed domain name is therefore confusingly similar to its INNISFREE mark.
The Complainant also asserts that it has not authorised or permitted the Respondent to register the disputed domain name and that the Complainant’s rights in the INNISFREE mark predate the registration of 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 Complainant has demonstrated that it owns registered trade mark rights in Vietnamese trade mark registration 35428 for INNISFREE registered on November 13, 2000. ...
2022-01-11 - 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.
...
2022-01-11 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the ESTAFETA
trademark as it substantially reproduces the mark merely with the minimal difference of the letter “r”.
...Discussion and Findings
6.1 Preliminary Issue: Language of the Proceeding
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-01-12 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the ESTAFETA
trademark as it substantially reproduces the mark merely with the minimal difference of the letter “z”.
...Preliminary Issue: Language of the Proceeding
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-01-12 - Case Details
Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainants’ 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...
2026-02-19 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that:
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark ARCELORMITTAL, as it fully incorporates the
mark with the addition of the term “steel”.
...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the
Complainant has rights, and the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the .UA Policy is satisfied.
...
2026-02-09 - Case Details
The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain
name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
Although the addition of other terms (here, “menu” and “ae”) may bear on assessment of the second and
third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity
between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...Discussion and Findings
6.1 Preliminary Issue: Consent to Remedy
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-02-06 - 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...
2025-05-16 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that:
(i) The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Mark. The Complainant submits that the domain
name incorporates the entirety of the Mark and adds the term “cdn”, which the Complainant states is a
commonly used abbreviation for “content delivery network”, a service the Complainant offers and which its
trade mark registrations cover. ...If you want I can transfer the domain name to you.”
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2025-04-29 - 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 f irst 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...
2025-04-28 - Case Details
page 3
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...
2025-06-16 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
The Panel shall now proceed to the analysis of the evidence in this case and shall decide if the Complainant
has satisfied the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
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...
2025-06-10 - Case Details
Respondent
Respondent did not reply to 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...
2025-05-05 - 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...
2025-05-02 - Case Details
In any case, the Respondent did not
reply at all in the merit of 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...
2025-06-02 - Case Details
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 or Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-05-23 - Case Details