Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark, 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 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.
...
2017-11-16 - Case Details
The three elements can be summarized as follows:
(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 the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...For the purpose of assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark, the generic TLD suffix ".pro" may be disregarded (LEGO Juris A/S v. ...
2017-11-13 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that:
a) The Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark MOU. All of them incorporate the trademark MOU in its entirety. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is patent that all the Disputed Domain Names incorporate the trademark MOU in its entirety. ...
2018-05-02 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s famous and registered mark REAL MADRID because it contains the Complainant’s mark in its entirety.
...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.
...
2018-04-26 - 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark MILLIMAN. As noted above, it has used this mark on its own for more than 10 years and in conjunction with other marks for longer than that. ...On this basis, the Panel has no hesitation in finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark MILLIMAN, and that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is therefore proved.
...
2012-10-12 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends as follows:
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered PREMIER LEAGUE mark. Addition of a common word, in this case “shop,” does not obviate confusion with the mark.
...WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”), paragraph 4.6, Consensus View.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established this Policy element with proof of its registered trademark for PREMIER LEAGUE. ...
2012-06-22 - Case Details