These elements are that:
(i) respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which complainant has rights; and
(ii) respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) respondent’s domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Each of the aforesaid three elements must be proved by a complainant to warrant relief.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has provided evidence of registration of the trademark FACPYA on the trademark register of IMPI and of use of that trademark in commerce in Mexico. ...
2011-02-07 - Case Details
Therefore, says the Complainant, the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to one or more of the trade marks in which the Complainant has rights within the meaning of 4(a)(i) of the UDRP.
...The disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s FALL GUYS mark and is therefore confusingly similar to it. The fact that the disputed domain name also incorporates the dictionary word “mobile” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. ...
2020-11-30 - Case Details
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
The Complainant does not rely upon registered trademark rights. Rather, the Compliant relies upon common law trademark rights as it is entitled to do.
...The Panel accordingly concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s FARMLAND trademark, disregarding the Top-Level Domain “.com”.
The Complainant succeeds on the first element of the Policy in relation to the disputed domain name.
...
2021-07-09 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Domain Name:
(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;
(ii) 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
Complainant has demonstrated rights through registration and use on the FOX mark.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar with the FOX trademark of Complainant.
...
2020-07-31 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name incorporates Complainant’s trademark EFG in its entirety. This is sufficient to establish confusing similarity (Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...D2002-0122).
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the EFG mark of Complainant.
Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2020-05-20 - Case Details
The addition of these generic words and hyphens do not serve to distinguish the domain names from the Complainant’s DROPBOX marks and the Panel finds that the domain names are confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights for the purpose of the Policy.”); see also section 1.8 of WIPO Overview 3.0).
...For the foregoing reasons the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark FILM4 in which the Complainant has exclusive rights.
B. ...
2020-05-18 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Domain Name:
(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(ii) 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 concludes that Complainant has unregistered rights in the common law trademark BEYOND PROTOCOL through use and consumer recognition since 2018 demonstrated in the record. ...
2021-12-14 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove, each of the following three elements required hereunder by a preponderance of evidence:
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
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2021-12-17 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or at least confusingly similar to marks owned by the Complainant and the Complainant’s company name as the disputed domain name consists of the name of the Complainant’s North American corporation known as “Sylvania”. ...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the OSRAM trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant has satisfied the first element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2021-08-23 - Case Details
Furthermore, the Complainant believes that the Respondent is also the registrant of other domain names which correspond to identical or confusingly similar variations of well-known third-party trademarks such as , and (Annex 14 to the Complaint), as well as the named Respondent in past UDRP cases such as Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. ...In accordance with paragraph 14(a) of the Rules, if the Respondent does not submit a Response, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall decide the dispute based upon the Complaint.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established its rights in the registered SALESFORCE trademark.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s SALESFORCE trademark entirely. ...
2021-08-19 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark BOOK OF RA; the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Substantive Elements of the .UA Policy
The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the .UA Policy in order to prevail.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element of paragraph 4(a) of the .UA Policy requires a complainant to establish first, that it has rights in a trademark, and secondly, that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
...
2021-08-18 - Case Details
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name incorporates Complainant’s trademark SODEXO in its entirety. This is sufficient to establish confusing similarity (Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...D2002-0122).
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the SODEXO mark of Complainant.
Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2021-08-18 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the trademark PACHA through registration demonstrated in the record.
The Panel also concludes that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the PACHA mark. The Domain Name entirely incorporates the PACHA mark, and adds the descriptive word “group”. ...
2021-05-19 - Case Details
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
Complainant asserts that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights because the Disputed Domain Name is identical to the alpha-string of Complainant’s word trademark, excepting the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.software”. ...Rules, paragraph 14(b).
6.2 Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name <1xbet.software> is identical to Complainant’s 1XBET word and stylized trademarks. ...
2021-05-31 - Case Details
In light of the above, the Panel concludes in accordance with paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that English shall be the language of this proceeding.
6.2. Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant demonstrated that it has the rights in the GAMINATOR Trademark in view of a number of registrations in different jurisdictions, including Russian Federation, and long use of its GAMINATOR Trademark.
...Previous UDRP panels have recognized that incorporation of a trademark in its entirety is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered mark; see bridport & cie S.A v. Privatewhois.net, Private Whois bridportadvisory.com,
WIPO Case No. ...
2021-06-28 - Case Details
Substantive Issues
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements, which the Complainant must satisfy in order to succeed:
(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 finds that the Complainant has therefore met its burden of proving that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has failed to file a formal Response in accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5.
...
2021-09-15 - Case Details
Complainant
Key contentions of the Complaint may be summarized as follows:
The disputed domain name contains sufficiently recognizable aspects of the ONLYFANS mark, only deleting the letters “nly” from its middle, being confusingly similar to this trademark.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...Accordingly, this Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, and the first element of the Policy under paragraph 4(a) has been satisfied.
...
2021-04-29 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the SÉZANE mark.
...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant has satisfied the first element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2021-04-16 - Case Details