Complainant
The Complainant maintains that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the PEPEE trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
According to the Complainant, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, as the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use the PEPEE trademark, and “Pepee” is not a common word or a generic name, but a distinctive sign registered as a trademark.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided evidence and has thus established its rights in the PEPEE trademark, registered in 2010. ...
2019-11-06 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant claims that the Domain Names are identical of confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. The Complainant claims to own an International trademark registration for the DR. ...The Complainant contends that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Dr. KOFFER trademark despite other terms in the Domain Names, because they fully incorporate it.
...
2019-10-14 - Case Details
Under paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, “A Panel shall decide a 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 first element of a UDRP complaint “functions primarily as a standing requirement” and entails “a straightforward comparison between the complainant’s trademark and the domain name”. ...Instead, it makes this summary conclusion concerning bad faith:
“Panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a famous or well‐known trade mark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. ...
2019-10-10 - Case Details
Complainant
The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s COVERMYMEDS trade mark. They comprise misspellings of the Complainant’s COVERMYMEDS mark. ...The Panel agrees that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s COVERMYMEDS trade mark.
The Panel accordingly finds that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been satisfied.
...
2021-10-21 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established rights in the trademark ALLEN & OVERY for purposes of standing to file its Complaint under the Policy based on the numerous trademark registrations for ALLEN & OVERY, including the ones cited in section 4 above.
...Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has established rights according to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2019-07-25 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP, in order to succeed in this proceeding, the Complainant must prove each of the following elements with respect to the Disputed Domain Name:
(i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a Trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (paragraph 4(a)(i)); and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name (paragraph 4(a)(ii)); and
(iii) the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (paragraph 4(a)(iii)).
...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.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established its rights in the WINDSTAR Trademark due to long use and different registrations in a number of jurisdictions.
...
2019-10-01 - 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; and
(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 THINKCONVEYANCING trademark. The Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name is identical to this trademark.
...
2019-09-25 - Case Details
In considering these elements, paragraph 15(a) of the Rules provides that the Panel shall decide the Complaint on the basis of statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules, and any other rules or principles of law that the Panel deems applicable.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element has a low threshold, merely serving as a gateway requirement under the Policy. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant has passed the first threshold of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2019-09-20 - Case Details
Complainant
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The disputed domain name incorporates well-known registered trademarks ELECTROLUX. ...Considering the above the Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, therefore, the Complainant has established its case under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2019-07-05 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark, the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, and the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
...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.
6.3 Substantive Elements of the Policy
The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark acquired through use and registration.
...
2019-06-18 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated that it owns numerous registered trade mark rights for its SKYSCANNER mark including the European Union designation of International trade mark registration number 900393 registered on March 3, 2006, and United Kingdom trade mark registration number 313916 registered on April 30, 2004. ...This does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity and the Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SKYSCANNER trade mark and accordingly that the Complainant succeeds under this element of the Policy.
...
2019-09-19 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the trademark PAYEX through registration demonstrated in the record. The Panel also concludes that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to that mark. The addition of the letters “ou” is of little consequence, as the PAYEX trademark is clearly recognizable within the Domain Name.
...
2021-11-15 - Case Details
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 is the non-exclusive licensee of the Brazilian trademark registrations for SOMPO and SOMPO-variations owned by Sompo Japan Insurance Inc. in Brazil (Annex 7 to the amended Complaint).
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name reproduces the textual component of the SOMPO trademark in its entirety with the addition of the terms “leilao” and “seguradora” and is therefore confusingly similar to it. It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement and that the threshold test for confusing similarity involves a “reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name”. ...
2021-09-29 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which it has rights because: (i) the disputed domain name is composed of the elements “Sodexo” and “net”. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark SODEXO in which the Complainant has rights.
B. 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 SODEXO trademark. ...
2021-08-06 - Case Details
The Complainant further notes that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s PORSCHE trade marks.
The Complainant asserts that it has not authorized the Respondent to use the PORSCHE mark and/or the Porsche name, and there is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has used, or undertaken any demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
...Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceedings shall be English.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel acknowledges that the Complainant has established rights in the PORSCHE trade mark in many territories around the world.
...
2021-10-08 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied, namely:
(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.
...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
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name, trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2021-09-10 - Case Details
As to the registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, the Complainant argues that previous UDRP panels have consistently found that the registration and use 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 pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. ...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 evidenced that it is the non-exclusive licensee of the Brazilian Trademark Registration No. 827939213 for TOKIO MARINE SEGURADORA” & device, owned by Tokio Marine Holdings, Inc.
...
2021-07-21 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
I. Identical or Confusingly Similar
That it is an investment company founded in 2011, with offices in Uruguay, Buenos Aires, Mexico City, Montevideo, and São Paulo.
...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.
...
2021-07-20 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant says that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its TARMAK trade
mark in that it identically reproduces its mark
The Complainant says also that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the
disputed domain name. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided details of a number of the registered trade marks it owns for TARMAK,
including the registration in respect of which full details have been provided above, which thereby establish
its rights in this mark.
...
2022-09-07 - Case Details
Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar as it is identical to and solely
consists of Complainant’s LAUDROLAB mark.
Complainant contends that Respondent does not have a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as
Respondent has no rights in LAUNDROLAB and has simply used the disputed domain name to redirect
Internet users to a third party website at .
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Ownership of a trademark registration is generally sufficient evidence that a complainant has the requisite
rights in a mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...
2022-09-06 - Case Details