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
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark KARTINA TV in which the Complainant has rights as it reproduces the trademark in its entirety with the mere addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.net”.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
As highlighted above, the Complainant relies on trademark registrations for KARTINA TV which are registered in the name of the Complainant’s managing director Andreas Reich (as per Annex 4 to the Complaint) and on which the Complainant claims trademark rights as exclusive licensee.
...
2021-03-04 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends as follows:
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant’s TECHNOGYM trademark is identical to the disputed domain name. The addition of the country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) “.ir” is irrelevant with respect to the test as it is viewed as a standard registration requirement.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established rights in its TECHNOGYM registered trademark as outlined in the factual background section above. ...
2021-02-24 - Case Details
Complainant
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. The disputed domain name entirely incorporates the Complainant’s trademark. ...According to section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, the domain name will normally be considered identical or confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing. The Panel finds that in the present case the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety.
...
2021-03-19 - Case Details
The only communications received from the Respondent are mentioned above in section 3 of this Decision.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has furnished evidence that it has trademark rights in the mark TATA.
...The Panel, therefore, concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant has therefore succeeded in establishing the first element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2021-03-18 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has provided evidence establishing that it has trademark rights in the MICHELIN mark through registrations in numerous jurisdictions including in India, where Respondent is located, thereby satisfying the threshold requirement of having trademark rights for purposes of standing to file a UDRP case. ...In comparing Complainant’s MICHELIN mark with the disputed domain name, , the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with Complainant’s mark. The disputed domain name contains Complainant’s MICHELIN mark in its entirety. ...
2020-12-11 - Case Details
Complainant
Key contentions of the Complaint may be summarized as follows:
The Complainant sent a cease and desist letter and various communications to the Respondent, which were never replied.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The disputed domain name incorporates the INSTAGRAM mark in its entirety with the addition of the dictionary term “how”, being the Complainant’s trademark clearly recognizable.
...Accordingly, this Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark, and the first element of the Policy under paragraph 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
...
2021-01-25 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, Complainant carries the burden of proving:
(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(ii) that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Further, according to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel may draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to submit a Response as it considers appropriate.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s BLUEHOST trademark, and that Complainant, thus, has standing to file this UDRP Complaint.
...
2021-01-22 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
The Complainant must prove that the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been met:
(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 with respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...DMX2012-0013; and Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. null John Zuccarini, Country Walk,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0487).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has submitted evidence showing that it owns registrations for the SHUTTERSTOCK mark in various jurisdictions and classes, to cover services related to the licensing of digital data and the publishing of images since 2007.
...
2021-01-20 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s XHAMSTER trade 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, XHAMSTER, and the “.org” generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) identifier.
...
2021-01-18 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s CROCS trademark in its entirety. The country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) “.com.ua” does not affect the disputed domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant’s first use and first registration of its CROCS mark predates any use the Respondent may have made of the disputed domain name as a trade name, domain name, mark, or common name. ...
2020-08-18 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel has decided not to redact the “organization name” of the Respondent.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Once the gTLD “.com” is ignored (which is appropriate in this case), the disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s registered word trademark ACCENTURE, followed by the word “Egypt”. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is not a licensee of, or otherwise affiliated with, the Complainant, and has not been authorized by the Complainant to use its ACCENTURE trademark. ...
2020-08-11 - Case Details
Substantive Matters
To succeed, in accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must satisfy the Panel that:
(1) The Disputed Domain Name is identical with or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(2) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and
(3) The Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the IPAKTORO trademark.
The Disputed Domain Name is identical to the IPAKTORO trademark. ...
2020-10-23 - Case Details
Substantive Matters
To succeed, in accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must satisfy the Panel that:
(i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical with 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;
(iii) the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the JASHANMAL registered trademark. The Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name is identical to this trademark. ...
2020-10-19 - Case Details
The disputed domain names are, according to the Complainant, confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, creating a likelihood of confusion given the reproduction of its trademark which is clearly recognizable as the leading element of the disputed domain names, not adding any distinctiveness thereto the addition of the descriptive terms “help”, “verified”, “verify”, “blue”, “badge” and “center”.
...This Panel is satisfied, in view of the evidence submitted and on balance that the disputed domain names are indeed subject to a common control and that consolidation would be fair and equitable to all Parties.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established its rights in the INSTAGRAM trademark (Annex 9 to the Complaint).
...
2020-10-02 - Case Details
Complainant
The following is a brief summary of the main assertions of the Complainant.
The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
Continuously used since at least 1925, the RHEEM Mark has served as a distinctive identifier associated with the Complainant for nearly a century. ...A complainant must prove each of these three elements to succeed.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant clearly has rights in its RHEEM mark.
Ignoring the generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.support” (as the Panel may do for comparison purposes), the Domain Name consists only of the RHEEM Mark and nothing more.
...
2020-10-13 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing (or threshold) requirement. ...Accordingly, this Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark, and the first element of the Policy under paragraph 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
...
2020-06-29 - Case Details
Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
By submitting printouts taken from various official trademark databases, Complainant has shown to the satisfaction of the Panel that it owns trademark rights in the ASPHALT 9 LEGENDS trademark. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel notes that the registrant of record of the disputed domain name, i.e. ...
2020-04-21 - Case Details
Based on this representation, the Panel has accepted and considered Complainant’s Additional Submission.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the GROUPON Mark by virtue of the United States trademark registrations cited above.
...Where a domain name incorporates complainant’s mark, this is sufficient to establish that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar for purposes of the Policy. See Kabushiki Kaisha Hitachi Seisakusho (d/b/a Hitachi Ltd) v. ...
2020-03-23 - Case Details
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its LEGO trademark submitting that the disputed domain name consists solely of the Complainant’s LEGO mark. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has adduced clear, convincing and uncontested evidence of its rights in the LEGO trademark acquired by its ownership of the trademark registrations described above and its extensive use of the mark in its sale of products and provision of services including on its website.
...
2021-01-14 - Case Details