The requested remedy may only be granted if the above criteria are met.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name fully incorporates the MARRIOTT mark and is identical with it. For the purpose of assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark, the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix “.host” may be disregarded.
...
2020-07-01 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the mark SALLY’S APIZZA through registration and use demonstrated in the record. The Panel also finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to that mark. The only difference between the mark and the Domain Name is the lack of an apostrophe in the Domain Name (and domain names cannot have apostrophes due to technical restrictions of domain name registration).
...
2019-11-21 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name wholly incorporates and is identical to the Complainant’s PUFFCO trademark, and is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s principal domain name through which it conducts its business.
...Discussion and Findings
Pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a), the Complainant must prove each of the following to justify the transfer of the disputed domain name:
(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 Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...
2019-11-11 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant considers the Disputed Domain Name to be confusingly similar to a trademark 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 therefore deal with each of these requirements.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element, the Complainant must first establish that there is a trademark in which it has rights. ...
2019-10-29 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark, the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, and the disputed domain names were 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.
6.3 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.
...
2019-08-22 - Case Details
Substantive Issues
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names, and <99iqos.com>, are identical or confusingly similar to its IQOS trademark, which has acquired a considerable degree of fame and recognition. ...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s IQOS trademark.
Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied the first element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2019-08-28 - 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
The first element has a low threshold for it merely serves as a standing requirement under the Policy. ...Accordingly, the Panel holds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark on which the Complaint is based.
The Complainant has fulfilled the first threshold of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2019-08-27 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s WHATSAPP trademark in its entirety with the addition of the descriptive term “cadenas de”. ...Under paragraph 14(a) of the Rules in the event of such a “default” the Panel is still required “to proceed with a decision on the complaint”, whilst under paragraph 14(b) it “shall draw such inferences there from as it considers appropriate”.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided enough evidence to show trademarks rights with regard to WHATSAPP in a large number of countries worldwide. ...
2019-10-10 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s WHATSAPP trademark in its entirety with the addition of the descriptive term “-on”. ...Under paragraph 14(a) of the Rules in the event of such a “default” the panel is still required “to proceed with a decision on the complaint”, whilst under paragraph 14(b) it “shall draw such inferences there from as it considers appropriate”.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided enough evidence to show trademarks rights with regard to WHATSAPP in a large number of countries worldwide. ...
2019-10-10 - Case Details
General
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely that:
(i) The 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 Domain Name: and
(iii) The Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under this, the first element of the Policy the Complainant has first, to establish that he has relevant trade mark or service mark rights and then, secondly, to establish that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark in which he has trade mark or service mark rights.
...
2019-09-06 - 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
The first element has a low threshold for it merely serves as a standing requirement under the Policy. ...Accordingly, the Panel holds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark on which the Complaint is based.
The Complainant has passed the first threshold of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2019-09-06 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its earlier trademarks, that
the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the disputed
domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the owner of numerous CARREFOUR formative trademarks, as well as a domain name
formed with CARREFOUR, all registered and used in relation with retail services.
...
2023-02-07 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP requires Complainant to make out all three of the following:
(i) the disputed 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 disputed domain name; and
(iii) Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
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
Complainant has provided evidence establishing that it has trademark rights in the CIC mark through
registrations in France and the European Union. ...
2023-03-06 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP requires Complainant to make out all three of the following:
page 3
(i) the disputed 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 disputed domain name; and
(iii) Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
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
Complainant has provided evidence establishing that it has trademark rights in the MRBALLEN mark through
registration in the United States. ...
2023-03-03 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the .GE 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.
...D2002-0122).
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMAZON trademark.
Complainant has established .GE Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2023-03-02 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant submitted evidence of Miranda Lambert’s trademark registrations for the mark IDYLLWIND,
along with Complainant’s exclusive license of those marks, thereby establishing its rights in the IDYLLWIND
mark for purposes of the Policy (hereinafter referred to as “Complainant’s IDYLLWIND trademark”). ...D2002-0122).
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s IDYLLWIND trademark.
Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2023-03-01 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has demonstrated rights through registration and use of the TEFAL mark.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the TEFAL trademark of Complainant.
The Domain Name incorporates the said trademark of Complainant in its entirety. ...
2023-01-13 - Case Details
The Complainants must prove in this administrative proceeding that each of the aforementioned three
elements is present in order to obtain the transfer of the disputed domain names.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainants have established rights over the ARIANE DE ROTHSCHILD trademark duly registered.
...For the reasons above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the
Complainants’ trademark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a non-exclusive list of circumstances that may indicate the
Respondents’ rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. ...
2023-03-13 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant prove all of the following three elements in order
to be successful in these proceedings:
(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 was registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant, under the first requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, needs to establish that the
disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or a service mark in which it has
rights. ...
2023-03-09 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has filed evidence that it holds rights in the KEI CONCEPTS trademark. ...It resolves to a parking webpage of the Registrar.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith...
2023-02-17 - Case Details