Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Domain Name:
(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(ii) 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 Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the trademark 2DEGE through registration demonstrated in the record. ...
2021-08-20 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name incorporates the first and main part (ZADIG) of Complainant’s ZADIG & VOLTAIRE trademark in its entirety. ...D2002-0122).
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ZADIG & VOLTAIRE trademark.
Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2021-08-18 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name incorporates the PUMA trademark of Complainant in its entirety. This is sufficient to establish confusing similarity (Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...D2002-0122).
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s PUMA trademark.
Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2021-08-18 - Case Details
Complainant
The following is a brief summary of the main assertions of the Complainant.
The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Domain Name is identical to the HESPERIDE trademark in which the Complainant has earlier rights. ...A complainant must prove each of these three elements to succeed.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant clearly has rights in the HESPERIDE trademark by virtue of its trademark registrations.
...
2021-08-18 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy sets forth the following three requirements, which have to be met for this Panel to order the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant:
(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.
...In accordance with paragraph 14(a) 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 the registered CORNING trademark.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name only differs by one letter to the Complainant’s trademark and is therefore confusingly similar to it. ...
2021-05-05 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant’s contentions include the following:
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered SODEXO mark as the disputed domain name wholly incorporates the SODEXO mark.
...Upon considering the above, the Panel determines that English be the language of the proceeding.
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2021-05-26 - Case Details
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that a complainant must prove each of the following:
(i) that the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
(ii) that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) that 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 KLARNA because it incorporates the mark in its entirety with the addition of the term “rama”. ...
2021-06-29 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its registered VALVOLINE trademark. The Complainant denies that the Respondent has ever been authorized to register domain names incorporating the Complainant’s trademark.
...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 “functions primarily as a standing requirement” and entails “a straightforward comparison between the complainant’s trademark and the domain name”. ...
2021-06-29 - Case Details
The addition of the Top-Level Domain “.com” is irrelevant in determining whether the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the KITE mark.
Respondent is not associated or affiliated with Complainant and Complainant has not granted any rights to Respondent to use the KITE or KITE PHARMA marks. ...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 KITE and KITE PHARMA trademarks, that it has used the domain name since 2009, and that no other entity has rights or uses the KITE PHARMA trademark. ...
2021-06-28 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the trademark ALEXANDRIA PROFESSIONAL through registration and use demonstrated in the record. The Panel also finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. In one instance, the Domain Name entirely incorporates the mark ALEXANDRIA PROFESSIONAL and then adds the word “academy”, which term describes one of Complainant’s core services under its mark, namely training people to perform various hair removal techniques. ...
2021-06-28 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Once the gTLD “.net” is ignored (which is appropriate in this case), the disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s registered word trademarks HEETS and IQOS, separated by a hyphen. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to trademarks in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant, is not an authorized distributor of the Complainant’s products, and has not been authorized by the Complainant to use its HEETS and IQOS word trademarks. ...
2021-09-17 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Once the gTLD “.com” is ignored (which is appropriate in this case), the disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s registered word trademark HEETS, followed by a second letter “s”. ...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 the Complainant, is not an authorized distributor of the Complainant’s products, and has not been authorized by the Complainant to use its HEETS word trademark. ...
2021-09-16 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the trademark ONLYFANS through registration and use demonstrated in the record.
With respect to the Domain Name , the Panel finds the Domain Name confusingly similar to the ONLYFANS mark. This Domain Name entirely incorporates the ONLYFANS mark and adds the word “trending,” which does little to overcome the fact that the mark is clearly recognizable within the Domain Name.
...
2021-09-16 - 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 Marks acquired through use and registration. ...
2021-05-03 - Case Details
According to section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark the domain name will normally be considered identical or confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing. In the present case, the disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the Complainant’s trademark.
...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
According to section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. ...
2021-03-09 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its registered ALLIANZ trademarks and that the Respondent has no permission or other evident rights or legitimate interests in using the mark 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 “functions primarily as a standing requirement” and entails “a straightforward comparison between the complainant’s trademark and the domain name”. ...
2021-02-26 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Once the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is ignored (which is appropriate in this case), the disputed domain name consists of the whole of the Complainant’s registered word trademark BIOMERIEUX followed by the letter “s”. ...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 BIOMERIEUX trademark. ...
2021-02-24 - Case Details
Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has demonstrated rights through registration and use on the ZELLE and ZELLEPAY marks.
The Panel finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar with the ZELLE and ZELLEPAY trademarks of Complainant.
The Domain Names incorporate the said trademarks of Complainant in their entirety. ...
2021-02-24 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Marks; 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 Marks acquired through use and registration.
...
2021-08-27 - Case Details
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 registered rights in the Trade Marks. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trade Marks as it incorporates SODEXO, of which the Trade Marks consist, in its entirety. ...Therefore, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trade Marks in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, the second element a complainant has to prove is that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. ...
2021-01-04 - Case Details