Complainant
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant further argues that the disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant's SANOFI trademarks and domain names, and that is sufficient to create a likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant's trademarks and domain names.
...Upon considering the above, the Panel determines that English be the language of the proceeding.
6.2. Substantive Issues
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.
...
2017-10-03 - Case Details
In conclusion, the Complainant asserts that, given that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its marks, it could never be used in association with PPC advertising by the Respondent in a manner that would not constitute use in bad faith.
...The Panel holds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the BALVENIE trademark of the Complainant.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The website to which the disputed domain name resolves has at some point been a parking page containing hyperlinks, including some to products of competitors of the Complainant. ...
2017-09-27 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the trademark SONJA JUNKERS. The filed evidence establishes she has a substantial commercial reputation in her name in connection with her business activities. ...Accordingly the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and hence the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been fulfilled.
...
2017-07-03 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is made entirely up of the registered trademark XOREL and the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".net". It is therefore identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered trademark XOREL.
No rights or legitimate interests
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no connection with the Complainant or any of its affiliates. ...
2017-06-29 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence provided, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the AMUNDI trademark.
...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical or 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.
...
2018-05-16 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that, in order to be entitled to the transfer of a domain name, a complainant shall prove the following three elements:
(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
(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.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided sufficient evidence showing that it is the owner of the WORLDPAY mark in many countries, and the Panel accepts that the Complainant’s WORLDPAY mark is well–known.
...
2017-03-14 - Case Details
On the basis of the arguments and evidence introduced by the Complainant, the Panel concludes as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights in SERVIER by virtue of its use and registration of the same as a trade mark.
...The addition of the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".top" does not impact the analysis of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's trade mark.
...
2016-12-15 - Case Details
Applicable Policy Provisions
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires Complainant to prove each of the following three elements in order to prevail in this proceeding:
(i) the disputed 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 disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Where a respondent is in default, a UDRP panel may draw such inferences as it considers appropriate. Rules, paragraph 14(b).
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered trademark TEXTURA. ...
2016-02-10 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is virtually identical and thus confusingly similar to the Complainant's family of RAINBOW trademarks because it incorporates one or more of those trademarks. ...The Respondent did not submit a formal response.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
When the ccTLD identifier ".au" and the second-level extension ".com" are ignored, the disputed domain name consists of the string "rainbowplay". ...
2015-12-07 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
A. Complainants
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainants' REVLON trade mark since it incorporates the Complainants' famous REVLON trade mark. ...It is a well-established principle that TLDs such as ".com" are to be disregarded when considering whether a domain name in dispute is identical or confusingly similar to a complainant's trade mark.
The issue therefore to be addressed is whether the addition of the word "buy" in the disputed domain name serves to remove any confusing similarity with the REVLON trade mark. ...
2016-01-29 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it owns a registered trademark in respect of the term ETH. ...It is well established that the specific Top-Level of the domain name (in this case ".com") does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar – see for example Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0429. Accordingly the Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2016-04-22 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided evidence of ownership of a registered trademark for DRAGON BLEU, filed in the European Union in 2013, and a registered trademark for DRAGON BLEU and design, filed in France in 2004.
...Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the disputed domain name is identical to the word trademark DRAGON BLEU and confusingly similar to the figurative trademark DRAGON BLEU in which the Complainant has established rights according to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2016-05-24 - Case Details
The Complainant further contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark INDIA MENS WEEK, in which the Complainant has exclusive rights. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and, specifically, has no connection, license or affiliation with the Complainant from which it might derive such rights or legitimate interests. ...Considering the evidence produced by the Complainant, the Panel determines that the Complainant has sufficiently demonstrated that INDIA MENS WEEK has become a distinctive identifier associated with the Complainant’s services such that it may here assert rights to the same under the Policy1 . The disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the trademark INDIA MENS WEEK as it contains the entire trademark.
The first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is accordingly proven by the Complainant.
...
2016-05-18 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a), the Complainant must prove each of the following to justify the transfer of 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; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...In this proceeding, the Respondent has not submitted a Response.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided evidence for its registrations of the ADMIRAL MARKETS trademark. ...
2018-03-20 - 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 clearly established its registered rights in the BAYER trademark.
...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BAYER trademark. The condition of paragraph 4(a)(i) if the Policy has been satisfied.
...
2017-11-30 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant owns various trade mark registrations for its KRONES mark including German trade mark registration DE744834. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s KRONES mark in which it owns registered rights and the Complaint succeeds under the first element of the Policy.
...
2017-06-22 - 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:
(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
There are two parts to the inquiry under the first element of the Policy. The Complainant must first demonstrate that it has rights in a trademark and secondly that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to such trademark.
...
2017-06-19 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is made entirely up of the registered trademark BAYER and the name Monsanto to which generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com" has been added. ...The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the registered trademark BAYER. The addition of Monsanto does not detract from any confusing similarity. ...
2017-05-01 - Case Details
According to Complainants, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainants’ Spectrum Marks in that it merely adds the non-distinctive words “my” and “news” and the “.com” generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”). ...The Panel further finds that the whole of the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainants’ Spectrum Marks. The addition of “my” and “news” do not prevent an Internet user from recognizing the “spectrum” within the disputed domain name.
...
2017-04-24 - 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 clearly established its registered rights in the CREDIT MUTUEL trademark. ...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The condition of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
...
2017-08-18 - Case Details