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
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
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
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 Panel is satisfied that the Center, by addressing the Complaint and the notice of commencement of this proceeding in accordance with the registrant contact details provided, has fulfilled its obligations to attempt to contact the Respondent in the manner prescribed by paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Rules.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is required to prove that he has rights in a trademark or service mark. ...Disregarding the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) designation “.com”, as is conventional, it would not be possible to create a domain name more confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark EMILE LEVISETTI than , which is effectively identical. ...
2015-03-26 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends as follows:
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered PREMIER LEAGUE mark. Addition of a common word, in this case “shop,” does not obviate confusion with the mark.
...WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”), paragraph 4.6, Consensus View.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established this Policy element with proof of its registered trademark for PREMIER LEAGUE. ...
2012-06-22 - Case Details
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
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark MILLIMAN. As noted above, it has used this mark on its own for more than 10 years and in conjunction with other marks for longer than that. ...On this basis, the Panel has no hesitation in finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark MILLIMAN, and that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is therefore proved.
...
2012-10-12 - 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
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There is no dispute that Complainant holds rights in the mark IG GROUP through registration and use. ...Several prior decisions under the Policy have held that a “wwwmark.com” domain name is held to be confusingly similar to the mark in question. See, e.g., Pig Improvement Co. v. Platinum Net,
WIPO Case No. ...
2012-12-27 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant claims the transfer of the disputed domain name on the following grounds:
(1) The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade marks. The Complainant says that the disputed domain name differs from its corporate name and registered trade marks only in inessentials. ...The Complainant must prove that each of those three elements is present.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name differs from the Complainant’s corporate name and its United States registered trade mark CME GROUP mentioned above only in the addition of the letter “s”. ...
2012-10-31 - Case Details
Consequently, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical to Complainant’s Mark and the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Mark. Respondent’s use of the descriptive word “printing” does not avoid confusion. ...Respondent registered the Domain Names, which are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s well-known HEIDELBERG Mark, without any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. ...
2015-03-16 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed in this administrative proceeding, Complainant must prove that:
(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 is registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s EXTRA and EXTRA HIPERMERCADOS marks.
The Complainant has thus met the first threshold of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2014-11-24 - 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
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