Notably, the Complainant contends that:
(i) The disputed domain names are nearly identical and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
PROCTORIO mark. Each of the disputed domain names only differ from the PROCTORIO mark by the
page 3
addition of generic Top-Level Domains (“gTLDs”) consisting of three to six letters after the entirety of
Complainant’s PROCTORIO mark.
...The disputed domain names contain the entirety of the Complainant’s
trademark. Therefore, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s famous
marks and were registered by the Respondent who has no relationship with the Complainant, which can by
itself create a presumption of bad faith. ...
2026-01-15 - Case Details
Considering all relevant circumstances, the Panel determines that the language of the proceeding shall be
English.
6.2. Substantive Issues
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...
2026-01-14 - Case Details
Lastly the Respondent acted in good faith as the Respondent registered the disputed
domain name believing the registration to be lawful and permissible, with no intent to harm or exploit the
Complainant’s goodwill.
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...
2026-01-12 - Case Details
Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar, if not identical, to its common law trademark.
Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...Each of the aforesaid three elements must be proved by a complainant to warrant relief.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has alleged common law trademark rights in the term “IM GLOBAL”. Complainant has not indicated a specific jurisdiction in which such trademark rights are alleged to be established. ...
2010-02-01 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that each of the three elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is given in the present case:
(1) The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is essentially identical with and therefore confusingly similar to the MARIA DUVAL Marks as it consists of the Complainant's marks to which only the suffix “.com” is added, which is without legal significance...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant's MARIA DUVAL Marks.
It is well established that the specific top level domain name generally is not an element of distinctiveness that can be taken into consideration when evaluating the identity or confusing similarity between the complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name (cf. ...
2009-10-23 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the 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 was registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules directs the Panel to decide the 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
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.
...
2011-03-10 - Case Details
Discussion And Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy sets forth the following three requirements which have to be met for this Panel to order the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant:
(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.
...For the reasons above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a non-exclusive list of circumstances that indicate the Respondent’s rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...
2013-06-24 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant claims that:
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s famous and registered Trademark.
The Respondent does not have any rights or a legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name because it trades on the goodwill of the Complainant’s Trademark, and the Respondent’s use of the Trademark is unauthorized. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has rights to the Trademark in various countries, including in Germany and in the United States.
...
2013-06-21 - Case Details
The Respondent concedes that the Complainant is in possession of a federal trademark registration to which the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar, which satisfies the first criterion of the Policy, but notes that the priority of the Respondent’s domain name registration bears an admission of the Respondent’s senior status.
...Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances each of which, if proven, shall demonstrate the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) above.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds the disputed domain name, , to be identical to the trademark DIGILOVE of the Complainant which the Complainant declares was first used in 2010. ...
2013-06-21 - 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 fully incorporates the Complainant’s EASYCAR Mark and is therefore identical to such mark. ...
2011-05-24 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its registered trade/service mark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name and that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name comprises the Complainant’s registered trade mark (albeit all in lower case) and the “.co” generic domain suffix.
...
2011-05-24 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the words in the NET-A-PORTER trade mark entirely. ...The absence of hyphens does not assist to distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from the NET-A-PORTER trade mark and the Panel accordingly holds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the NET-A-PORTER trade mark. Therefore, the first limb of paragraph 4(a) is established.
...
2011-05-23 - Case Details
Complainant
The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights
The disputed domain name was created on January 12, 2010. ...However, as it contains some argumentation on the merits of the case, the informal communication will nevertheless be considered by the Panel in its decision.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s registered and well-known mark DANSKE SPIL with the addition of the “.info” gTLD designation. ...
2011-04-29 - Case Details
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant states that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. ...
2011-06-20 - 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.
...However, the present decision does not establish any rights of the Respondent in the disputed domain names, nor does it prevent future proceedings brought by a party able to prove rights in names identical or confusingly similar to the disputed domain names.
7. Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied.
...
2011-06-20 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided evidence of two valid trademark registrations granted by the Chilean Trademark and Patent Office, i.e. the trademark registration Nos. 676454 for REFAX CHILE (figurative mark), filed on April 22, 2003 and granted on October 22, 2003, in class 12 C and 676455 for REFAX CHILE (word mark), filed on April 22, 2003 and granted on October 22, 2003 in class 12 C.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the marks in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy since the word “chile” is a mere geographical indication of origin which cannot be itself considered as a distinctive element.
...
2011-06-17 - Case Details
The Complainant says that what it regards as the dominant part “lego” of the disputed domain name causes it to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks for the word LEGO. Furthermore, the prefix “minotaurusby”, referring to one of the Complainant’s games “Minotaurus”, will not have any impact on the overall impression of the dominant part of the disputed domain name being the trademark LEGO.
...The dispute is properly within the scope of the Policy and the Panel has jurisdiction to decide the dispute.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has satisfied the Panel that it is the owner of numerous registered trademarks for the word LEGO. ...
2011-06-14 - Case Details
In its email of December 18, 2010 the Respondent agreed to release the domain names in dispute “to Lorraine Clavier”.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The test of identity or confusing similarity under the Policy is confined to a comparison of the disputed domain name and the trademark alone, independent of the products for which the domain name is used or other marketing and use factors, usually considered in trademark infringement (See e.g. ...It is also well established that the specific top level of a domain name such as “.com”, “.org”, or “.net” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar
The Panel thus finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the trademarks in which Complainant has exclusive rights and that Complainant has established the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2011-02-18 - Case Details
Complainants
(i) The Complainants contend that the disputed domain name is identical to and confusingly similar to the trademarks at issue, because it incorporates in its entirety the name “Tony Lama” with the mere addition of the expression “boots” which is not the distinctive element of the disputed domain name.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Tony Lama mark, which it incorporates in its entirety.
Thus, the Complainants have satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2011-02-14 - Case Details
Complainant
(i) The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its BELL and BELL HELMETS marks, and that the use of a hyphen between “bell” and “helmet” does not have any impact on the overall impression of the disputed domain name.
...In addition, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the BELL marks, which it incorporates in their entirety.
Regarding the “.com” top-level domain, the use of generic top-level domains does not ordinarily serve to distinguish a domain name from registered marks. ...
2011-07-08 - Case Details