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 was 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.
...
2021-03-03 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contentions can be summarized as follows:
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant contends that the Dispute Domain Name is clearly identical to the Complainant FRIGORIFICO CANELONES trademark. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark FRIGORIFICO CANELONES. ...
2020-08-07 - 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. ...
2020-08-04 - 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 demonstrated that it owns various trade mark registrations globally for its ALLIANZ mark including German trade mark registration 987481 registered on July 11, 1979 for ALLIANZ and European Union Trade Mark 000013656 registered on July 22, 2002 for ALLIANZ.
The disputed domain name wholly incorporates the ALLIANZ mark and is therefore confusingly similar to it. The disputed domain name also includes “my” before the mark and “investbk” after the mark but before the gTLD “.com” and is according to the Panel clearly intended to mean “my allianz investment bank”. ...
2021-02-17 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is, according to the Complainant, confusingly similar to the Complainant’s notorious trademark, creating a likelihood of confusion, given that the addition of the “cdn” acronym refers to the Complainant’s Content Distribution Network and related domain name , not being able to alter the fact that the Complainant’s trademark remains clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name.
...The Complainant must prove in this administrative proceeding that each of the aforesaid three elements is present so as to have the disputed domain name transferred to it, according to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established rights in the FACEBOOK and FB trademarks duly registered in several countries around the world (Annex 8 to the Complaint).
...
2021-02-11 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is not identical to the Complainant’s AUTODESK trademark. However, the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s distinctive AUTODESK trademark in an immediately recognizable manner. ...Therefore, the Panel holds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s AUTODESK trademark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent was not authorized to use or incorporate the AUTODESK trademark of the Complainant in any way. ...
2020-09-29 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade marks, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant owns rights in the PARI MATCH Marks. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s PARI MATCH mark in its entirety. ...
2020-08-17 - 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.
...
2020-08-10 - 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 Mark. The Domain Name is identical to the Trade Mark as it incorporates the Trade Mark in its entirety. ...Therefore, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark 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. ...
2020-09-17 - 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 the element BOL.COM, 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. ...
2020-09-16 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
5A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
5.A.1 Complainant asserts rights in the SAINT-GOBAIN trade mark, examples of which are summarized in paragraph 4.A.3 above.
5.A.2 Complainant further points to the fact that its corporate name is “Saint-Gobain”.
5.A.3 Complainant is also the registered owner of the domain name , which was registered on December 29, 1995, and to which its website resolves.
5.A.4 Complainant points to the fact that the disputed domain names incorporate the SAINT-GOBAIN trade mark in its entirety as well as both its corporate name and said domain name.
5.A.5 In the circumstances, Complainant asserts that both the disputed domain names are identical to its SAINT-GOBAIN trade mark.
...That is, the Policy expressly recognizes that other circumstances can be evidence relevant the requirements of paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and (iii) of the Policy.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.5 From the particulars of the relevant trade marks set out in paragraph 4.A.3 above, clearly Complainant has rights in the SAINT-GOBAIN trade mark, which is a well-known mark.
6.6 Since both the disputed domain names incorporate the SAINT-GOBAIN trade mark in its entirety, they are identical to that mark.
6.7 Accordingly, Complainant meets the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2020-09-15 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the famous trademark FACEBOOK through widespread registration and use demonstrated in the record. The Panel also finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the mark. Each of the Domain Names fully incorporates the FACEBOOK mark, and adds a dictionary term. ...
2020-07-21 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated that it owns European Union Trade Mark registration no. 3353463 registered on January 24, 2005 for its AGFA mark. ...As a consequence, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s AGFA trade mark. The addition of the letters “fq” in the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. ...
2020-07-16 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the f irst element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...The Panel f inds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the
Complainant has rights.
The f irst element of the Policy has been established.
...
2026-04-22 - 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...
2026-02-27 - 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...
2026-06-08 - 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...
2026-06-05 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s trademark in that the disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s trademark in its
entirety with the addition of the descriptive word “exam”. ...Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2026-06-05 - 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...
2026-03-20 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its well-known
CARREFOUR trademark. It argues that the disputed domain name incorporates its mark in its entirety and
that the addition of the geographical identifier “-ae” (for the United Arab Emirates) does nothing to diminish
the the likelihood of confusion by suggesting an official online store for the Complainant in that region.
...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. ...
2026-04-20 - Case Details