Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical, or virtually identical, and confusingly similar to its DOTHOME trademark. The disputed domain name is simply the plural form of that trademark, and is indistinguishable from it.
...Thus, this Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has been providing a real estate search engine service since some time in 2006. ...
2009-12-08 - Case Details
Under the Policy, Complainant alleges in detail that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name; and that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Respondent therefore concedes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to trademarks of Complainant, and that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. ...
2009-11-02 - Case Details
Respondent did not reply to Complainant's contentions
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has held many USPTO-registered marks for decades, and has used those marks extensively in commerce during that period. As the dominant feature of the disputed domain names is the three letter combination AAA, those domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's marks. Complainant has established the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2009-04-24 - Case Details
The Complainant claims that the domain name is confusingly similar to his unregistered service mark RUSSELL PETERS. In particular, the Complainant claims that the domain name is a purposeful misspelling (missing an “L”) of his service mark, and is phonetically identical to his service mark.
...The substantive components of the communications made by the Respondents in this proceeding have been described above.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is clear from numerous past decisions under the Policy that the Policy is applicable to an unregistered trademark or service mark in which common law rights subsist (e.g. ...
2009-04-21 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant argues that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its PIERRE FABRE marks and company names, and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
...Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to divest the Respondent of the Domain Name, the Complainant must demonstrate each of the following:
(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.
...
2009-04-15 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
5.A. Complainant
5.A.1 Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name in issue is identical to the Complainant’s UNITED DOMINION registered U.S. trademark but for the joining of the two words “united” and “dominion” and the .com suffix. ...That is, the Policy expressly recognizes that other circumstances can be evidence relevant the requirements of paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and (iii) of the Policy.
6.A Identical or Confusingly Similar
The fact that the domain name in issue combines into one word the two word component of the Complainant’s UNITED DOMINION trademark does not prevent a holding of identicality under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...
2007-10-04 - Case Details
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant asserts, inter alia, as follows:
(i) that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the name of the magazine published by the Complainant and to its registered trademark; and
(ii) that the Respondents have no rights nor any legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.
...The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark STREET CHOPPER and, accordingly, paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied in this case.
...
2007-09-20 - Case Details
Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The trademarks of Complainant such as BMW differ only in immaterial detail from the distinct portion of the disputed domain name.
The Panel concludes that the present domain name is confusingly similar to the BMW Trademarks in that it comprises the trademark BMW with the totally descriptive suffix “hybrid” together with the generic top-level domain name indicator “.com”.
...
2007-08-27 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant is the owner of the trademark “Simple Truths” (Registration No. 2973764) and it sells books and other products on its website of the same name . ...The Panel here finds both and to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant relies solely on the USPTO decision and the related actions to form the basis for its argument that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. ...
2010-10-05 - 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
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
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
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
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainants have established, to the satisfaction of the Panel, that they have substantial rights in the trademark WACOAL. ...The disputed domain name is not identical to the Complainants’ name and trademark as they allege, but it is clear to the Panel that it is confusingly similar. For example, it was held in America Online, Inc. v. East Coast Exotics,
WIPO Case No. ...
2010-11-22 - Case Details
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant has the burden of proof in respect of the following three elements:
(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.
The Panel will consider each of these elements in turn.
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.
...
2010-11-05 - Case Details
A registrant that simply adds numerals or generic terms to the Complainant’s trademark does not avoid a finding that domain name to be confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. See, e.g., Caterpillar Inc. v. Roam the Planet, Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. ...D2000-0167 (WIPO April 27, 2000) () (domain name constructed by addition of generic “e” to Complainant’s mark held to be confusingly similar to mark); NCP Marketing Group, Inc. v. Entredomains,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0387 (WIPO July 5, 2000) () (domain name constructed by adding generic “tv” suffix to Complainant’s trademark found to be confusingly similar because “[r]espondent does not, by adding a generic noun or common descriptive term or adjective following a word or letter mark, create a new or different mark.”).”
...
2010-12-16 - Case Details