In light of these circumstances, the Panel concludes that it will (1) accept the Complaint in English and the Respondent’s communication in Korean if there were any; (2) consider any relevant materials in Korean; and (3) issue a decision in English.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts: first, whether the Complainant has rights in a relevant trademark and, second, whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
...The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety, and the use of the gTLD extension “.net” may be disregarded when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark (see Proactiva Medio Ambiente, S.A. v. Proactiva,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0182).
...
2021-05-18 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its LIEBHERR trademark because it incorporates the LIEBHERR trademark in its entirety. ...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant owns trademark rights in LIEBHERR that precede the registration of the disputed domain name by many years. ...
2021-05-12 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Because the Complainant has supplied evidence of its trademark registration with the EUIPO for the E LECLERC mark, the Panel finds that the Complainant has the necessary rights in that mark for the purposes of Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proved that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The consensus of prior Policy panels is that a complainant need present only a prima facie case that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name, and then the burden of evidence production falls on that respondent to furnish evidence that it does possess those rights or interests. ...
2021-04-12 - Case Details
At the same time, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, if a party, in the absence
of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any provision of, or requirement under, the Rules, or any
request from the Panel, the Panel shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s registered trademark
MARTHA STEWART.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has not produced, and there is no evidence of the types of circumstances set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy that might give rise to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name on the part of the Respondent in these p...
...
2024-08-19 - Case Details
Nevertheless, the Panel
notes that the Respondent’s informal Chinese communications have been fully considered.
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...
2024-08-14 - Case Details
Panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a
domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated
entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-08-02 - Case Details
Respondent
5.7 No formal response was filed by the Respondent in the present proceeding, although it did send an
email as set out in the Procedural History section of this decision.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.1 It is generally 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...
2024-07-30 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that Complainant holds rights in the mark DESCON through registration and use
demonstrated in the record. The Panel also concludes that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to
Complainant’s mark. The Domain Name entirely incorporates the DESCON mark, and adds the term
“automation.” ...
2024-07-26 - Case Details
The Panel will therefore proceed to analyze whether the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are
satisfied.
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...
2024-07-19 - Case Details
page 4
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...
2024-09-12 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
As a preliminary procedural matter, the Panel did not consider an unsolicited supplemental filing made by the
Complainant.
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...
2024-09-09 - Case Details
Further, according to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel may draw such inferences from the
Respondent’s failure to submit a substantive response as it considers appropriate.
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...
2024-08-06 - Case Details
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...
2026-02-11 - Case Details
The Panel concludes
that the Parties have been given a fair opportunity to present their case, and so that the administrative
proceeding takes place with due expedition the Panel will proceed to a Decision accordingly.
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...
2024-11-06 - Case Details
Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines pursuant to paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that
the language of the proceeding shall be English.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Accordingly,
based on its review of the specific Trade Mark and domain name at issue in this matter, the disputed domain
name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section
1.7.
...
2024-10-18 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the marks MOLSON, COORS, and MOLSON COORS
through registration and use demonstrated in the record. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-10-16 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel decides to consolidate the disputes regarding the nominally different disputed domain
name registrants (referred to herein as “the Respondent”) in a single proceeding.
6.2. Substantive issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondents
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-10-11 - Case Details
The fact that the disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety creates
sufficient similarity to render it confusingly similar.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that
Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, and Complainant has not given Respondent
authorization to use its MOUNJARO mark. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of
the Policy (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1).
...
2024-10-08 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the three following
elements is satisfied:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark 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.
page 4
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2024-10-24 - Case Details
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.
6.2. 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...
2024-10-03 - Case Details