Complainant
(i) The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the EPIDUO trademark and that the use of the generic term “review” does not have any impact on the overall impression of the dominant part of the domain name.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the EPIDUO trademark, which it incorporates in its entirety.
Thus, the Complainant has satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2011-04-19 - Case Details
It asserts that its trade mark registrations or its corporate and business name PATRIZIA is identical or confusingly similar to the Disputed Domain Name.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent does not operate a business under the PATRIZIA mark and does not own any registered trade mark rights in respect of this mark. ...Respondent
The Respondent submits that the Complainant’s trademark registrations are for figurative marks containing the word mark PATRIZIA and a device mark and that as a result the Disputed Domain Name is not identical or confusingly similar to any of the Complainant’s trademark registrations.
The Respondent says that it does have legitimate rights or interests and that it acquired the Disputed Domain Name at auction on December 23, 2003 for use by his sister in law, Patricia, who goes by the nickname “Patrizia”. ...
2010-12-21 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that its name and trademark GRUNDFOS is well-known around the world and especially within the relevant industries.
The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's GRUNDFOS trademark, as the dominant and characteristic part of the Domain Name is “grundfos”. ...The Panel has to take his decision on the basis of the statements and documents before it and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules, and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided evidence and has thus established its rights in the GRUNDFOS trademarks, registered for the territories of Denmark and the Russian Federation.
...
2010-12-20 - Case Details
In accordance with paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules, and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant owns Italian registrations for PRODEGIL90 (&design), as noted under Section 4, “Factual Background” above.
...In view of the foregoing, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names and are confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights, and therefore, the Complainant has succeeded on this first element under the Policy.
...
2011-04-14 - Case Details
These elements are that:
(i) respondent’s 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) respondent’s domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Each of the aforesaid three elements must be proved by a complainant to warrant relief.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has provided evidence of registration of the trademark FACPYA on the trademark register of IMPI and of use of that trademark in commerce in Mexico. ...
2011-02-07 - Case Details
Substantive Elements of the Policy
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The test for identity or confusing similarity under the Policy is confined to a comparison of the disputed domain names and the trademark alone. ...The Panel thus finds that the disputed domain names , , , , , , , , , and are confusingly similar to the Complainants’ SUPERBAHIS mark and that the Complainants have established the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2013-02-26 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends principally that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to marks 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.
...In order to prevail, the Complainant must demonstrate the presence of each of the three elements under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that the Complainant has rights in the mark, VESTAKEEP, and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark. ...
2013-02-26 - Case Details
Complainant’s primary website is located at “www.atlascopco.com”.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the above mentioned trademarks over which the Complainant has rights. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the Complainant’s trademark. The use of the Complainant’s trademark with the suffix “online” does not make the disputed domain name distinctive from the Complainant’s trademark. ...
2012-01-16 - Case Details
Michael Robertson,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0009.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The case record contains ample evidence to demonstrate the Complainant’s rights in the registered CATERHAM mark. The Panel also determines that the Disputed Domain Name is identical and therefore confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CATERHAM mark. The test for determining confusing similarity involves a direct comparison of a complainant’s trademark and the textual string which comprises the domain name. ...
2012-02-15 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the following three elements is present:
(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark; 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 disputed domain name consists of the term “südkurier”, which is included in the Complainant’s trademarks, and is confusingly similar to such trademarks.
...
2011-11-16 - Case Details
The Trade Mark’s awareness and recognition among worldwide consumers is significant.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. It comprises the Trade Mark in its entirety.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. ...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark, and holds that the Complaint fulfills the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2012-01-10 - Case Details
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the following three elements is present:
(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.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant’s MEDIASET Marks and is identical to such marks. ...
2012-02-21 - Case Details
For all of the above reasons, the Respondent requests that the Complaint denied.
6. Discussion and Findings
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.
...To this end, prior UDRP panels have established that attracting Internet traffic for commercial purposes by using a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark may be evidence of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP.
...
2011-12-01 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
5. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated that it owns registered trademark rights in its GOT MILK? ...As a result, the Panel finds that the Complainant has demonstrated its trade trademark rights and finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark GOT MILK?. The Complaint therefore succeeds under the first element of the Policy.
...
2011-09-29 - Case Details
Complainants
Generally, Complainants contend that:
1. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainants’ trademark VORTEX OF CREATION;
2. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and
3. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is identical in material part to a trademark owned and used by Complainants. ...
2011-09-23 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s word and device mark, and is identical to the Complainant’s word mark. Accordingly, this Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar and identical to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant expressly contested the authenticity of the identity of the Respondent. ...
2011-09-01 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the CHOPARD trademark since it reproduces the term "chopard" in its integrity. Complainant further states that the term "chopard" is the sole and unique element constituting the domain name under dispute, without any adding, and this is sufficient to establish the infringement and risk of confusion in this case.
...The burden of proving these elements is on Complainant.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has duly proven the first element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy by attesting that it is the legitimate owner of several trademark registrations for CHOPARD worldwide, prior to the registration of the disputed domain name.
...
2014-09-26 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements, which the Complainant must satisfy in order to succeed:
(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 Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the LEGO Mark both by its trademark registrations (e.g., in China) and its long-standing use, and that the Domain Name is identical, if not confusingly similar, to the LEGO Mark. ...
2013-10-07 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks because the trademarks PORSCHE and 918 SPYDER are embodied fully and identically in the disputed domain names.
...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names and <918-spyder.com> are clearly confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks and, as a result, finds that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is met.
...
2014-03-19 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the following three elements is present:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark; 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.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name fully incorporates the BRADESCO Marks in which the Complainant has exclusive rights.
...
2014-03-14 - Case Details