Decision
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 which predate by well over 30 years the dates of registration of the disputed domain names.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.
The Panel therefore holds that the Complaint fulfills the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2012-07-25 - 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 trademark registrations for FLUTIFORM, 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 a trademark in which the Complainant has rights, and therefore, the Complainant has succeeded on this first element under the Policy.
...
2012-09-10 - Case Details
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove the presence of each of the following three elements to obtain the remedy it has requested:
(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 disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s RBS trademark. ...
2013-05-23 - Case Details
The Complainant maintains that the disputed domain name is essentially identical, or in the alternative confusingly similar, to its FUTURE FENCE AND DECK mark. The Complainant submits that the omission of the word "and" in the disputed domain name does not serve to distinguish it from the Complainant's mark, and that the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) ".com" should be disregarded for purposes of identity or confusing similarity.
...International Electronic Communications Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel initially addresses whether the Complainant has established trademark or service mark rights in "Future Fence and Deck." ...
2014-09-23 - Case Details
In accordance with paragraph 10 of the Rules and in the exercise of its general powers, the Panel has determined that it is appropriate to take into account what has been alleged by the Respondent in the above-described communications in rendering its decision.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires that the Complainant demonstrate that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...Since both the disputed domain name and the Complainant's marks contain the same word "elzinc" and the word or device elements comprised therein, as well as the gTLD ".com", can be disregarded in the assessment of confusing similarity, the Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks according to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy requires that the Complainant demonstrate that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
...
2014-11-13 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has clearly shown that it has rights in the KRAFT Trademarks registered in several countries including Chile, where the Respondent is located, and furthermore, the rights it has in the WHAT´S COOKING trademark registered in Canada.
...The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the KRAFT and WHAT´S COOKING trademarks and the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to this trademark.
Therefore, the Panel considers that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is met.
...
2013-06-06 - Case Details
These elements are discussed in turn below.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There is no dispute that the Complainant has rights in its SOMERSBY mark. The disputed domain name is relevantly identical to that mark. ...As such, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Because of the Panel’s findings below, it is not necessary to address the issue of whether the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
...
2013-05-29 - Case Details
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
As can be seen from section 4 above, the Complainant is the registered proprietor of a number of Australian and New Zealand trade mark registrations of marks comprising or including the word “Reckon”.
...The Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to trade marks in which the Complainant has registered trade mark rights.
While all those registrations post-date registration of the Domain Name by several years, the date of the coming into existence of the Complainant’s trade mark rights is irrelevant for the purposes of this element of the Policy, provided that those rights existed at the date of filing of the Complaint. ...
2013-08-01 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant maintains that is has used TEXAS CASH as a trademark long before the Respondent registered the disputed domain name, which the Complainant asserts is confusingly similar if not identical to its trademark. According to the Complainant, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in the course of his employment with the Complainant and at the Complainant’s direction. ...International Electronic Communications Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel initially addresses whether the Complainant has established trademark or service mark rights in “Texas Cash”. ...
2013-03-27 - Case Details
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's registered trademark GRATISBYGGETILBUD and confusingly similar to the trademark “WWW.GRATISBYGGETILBUD.DK”.
The Complainant has been the holder of the Danish domain name since March 12, 2004 and the Norwegian domain name since February 25, 2008. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is, according to the submitted evidence, the owner of the registered Danish trademarks WWW.GRATISBYGGETILBUD.DK and GRATISBYGGETILBUD. ...
2010-04-23 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends the following:
- The dominant part of the disputed Domain Name comprises the word “Lego”, which is identical to the trademark LEGO, which has been registered by the Complainant as a trademark (and used in domain names) in numerous countries all over the world including Cambodia;
- The disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark LEGO despite the suffix “kidsworld”. Moreover, the Complainant contends that this addition is more of a reason to link the disputed Domain Name with the Complainant, as the latter's primary focus is toys and other products for kids;
- The addition of the top-level domain “.com” does not have any impact on the overall impression of the dominant portion of the disputed Domain Name;
- Web users are likely to mistake the disputed Domain Name to be the Complainant's; there is a likelihood of confusion including an obvious association with the Trademark of the Complainant (initial interest confusion);
- The Complainant's trademark is at risk of being tarnished by being mistakenly connected to the website to which the disputed Domain Name resolves; the disputed Domain Name used to resolve to a website that is confusingly similar to the official LEGO website, then negotiations to sell the disputed Domain Name to the Complainant failed, the Respondent changed it to the sponsored links website;
- The Respondent has no registered trademarks or trade names corresponding to the domain name and has not been using the LEGO trademark in any other way such that would give them any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed Domain Name;
- No license or authorization of any other kind has been given by the Complainant to the Respondent, to use the trademark LEGO;
- The Trademark LEGO is a well known trademark, and as such should be awarded global protection not just in connection with a limited list of products and/or services;
- It is highly unlikely that the Respondent would not have known of the Complainant's rights in the name LEGO at the time of registration of the Domain Name suggesting that it is the fame of the trademark that has motivated the Respondent to register the disputed Domain Name;
- The Respondent is not using the disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. ...In the absence of a response by the Complainant accepting such terms for the transfer, the Panel is compelled to consider the elements and decide on the merits of the Case, where an affirmative finding under the three elements must be established.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided a long list of trademarks along with excerpts from the OHIM website evidencing the various EU Trademark registrations held by the Complainant. ...
2010-04-21 - Case Details
(6) Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the AIR LIQUIDE trademark owned by and registered to Complainant.
(7) Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name...Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant contends that it owns the registrations for the trademark AIR LIQUIDE in France and the trademark AL AIR LIQUIDE in Korea. ...
2010-04-20 - Case Details
It seeks the transfer of the disputed domain names on the grounds that:
- The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
- The Respondent has 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.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name differs from the mark INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS AND RESORTS only in the omission of the conjunction “and”. ...
2010-08-10 - Case Details
Complainants
The Complainants allege that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainants' COSTCO trademarks, because they consist of the Complainants' well-known registered trademark COSTCO together with the common terms “baby” and “family.”
...Consequently, the Panel must proceed with an assessment of the Complaint on its merits.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Previous UDRP panels have held that the addition of common terms to a registered trademark and registration of the result as a domain name does not necessarily mitigate the confusing similarity between the domain name and the included mark (EAuto, L.L.C. v. ...
2010-08-09 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark and service mark in which the Complainant has legal rights; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...Respondent
The Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainants contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is both identical to and confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has protected legal rights. ...
2010-06-11 - Case Details
Domain names which differ from a trademark by only minor variations have a greater tendency to be confusingly similar to the trademark where the trademark is highly distinctive. There is a close similarity both aurally and visually between the domain names and Complainant's mark. (...) The Panel finds that the domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's mark.” ainsi que la décision Crédit Industriel et Commercial, Conféderation Nationale du Crédit Mutuel v. ...
2010-05-20 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's IIFL service mark, that Respondent's business cannot be considered legitimate and that Respondent is trying to exploit the goodwill associated with the Complainant's mark. ...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
Complainant contends that Respondent is a “career cybersquatter” because he has registered 1400 domain names. ...
2010-07-01 - Case Details
Accordingly, paragraph 15(a) of the Rules requires the Panel to decide the dispute on the basis of the statements and documents that have been submitted and any rules and principles of law deemed applicable.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element that the Complainant must establish is that the disputed domain name is identical with, or confusingly similar to, the Complainant’s trade mark rights.
There are two parts to this inquiry: the Complainant must demonstrate that it has rights in a trademark and, if so, the disputed domain name must be shown to be identical or confusingly similar to the trademark.
The Complainant has proven ownership of the two registered trade marks in Sweden referred to in section 4 above for EXPRESSEN.
...
2014-02-14 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its registered trademarks THE RECESSIONISTA and THE CHIC RECESSIONISTA, which the Complainant has used since 2008 in relation to a blog on the topic of fashion during the economic downturn and frugal living tips.
...All three elements must be present before a complainant can succeed in an administrative proceeding under the Policy.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s registered trademark THE RECESSIONISTA, differing only in the non-distinctive domain name suffix “.net”.
...
2014-03-27 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is made entirely up of the registered trademark ENSEMBLE LONDON to which the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” has been added. The disputed domain name is therefore confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark ENSEMBLE LONDON. The Complainant further argues that as the former owner of the disputed domain name it has rights in the disputed domain name that, is by definition, identical.
...
2015-05-13 - Case Details