Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to prevail, a complainant must prove the following elements of a claim for transfer or cancellation of a respondent’s domain name:
(i) that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
(ii) that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and
(iii) that the respondent’s domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...However, here the Panel is not required to indicate what the decision would be if the Second Complainant were the only Complainant as the information provided is enough to enable the Panel to decide in favour of the First Complainant regarding the threshold issue of standing and possessing of a relevant trademark.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In the Panel’s view, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the First Complainant’s registered trademark. ...
2011-02-07 - Case Details
In its email of December 18, 2010 the Respondent agreed to release the domain names in dispute “to Lorraine Clavier”.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The test of identity or confusing similarity under the Policy is confined to a comparison of the disputed domain name and the trademark alone, independent of the products for which the domain name is used or other marketing and use factors, usually considered in trademark infringement (See e.g. ...It is also well established that the specific top level of a domain name such as “.com”, “.org”, or “.net” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar
The Panel thus finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the trademarks in which Complainant has exclusive rights and that Complainant has established the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2011-02-18 - Case Details
Complainants
(i) The Complainants contend that the disputed domain name is identical to and confusingly similar to the trademarks at issue, because it incorporates in its entirety the name “Tony Lama” with the mere addition of the expression “boots” which is not the distinctive element of the disputed domain name.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Tony Lama mark, which it incorporates in its entirety.
Thus, the Complainants have satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2011-02-14 - Case Details
Complainant avers that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s INTOPIC mark, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. ...D2000-0004 (February 16, 2000).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has claimed rights in the mark INTOPIC based on its United States (U.S.) application of the mark for “advertising and marketing services” (Serial. ...
2010-11-02 - Case Details
In accordance with paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted 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 owns trademark registrations for ELECTROLUX, KELVINATOR, AEG and FRIGIDAIRE, as noted under paragraph 4, “Factual Background” above.
...In view of the foregoing, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names , , and are confusingly similar to trademarks in which the Complainant has rights, and therefore, the Complainant has succeeded on this first element under the Policy.
...
2010-11-30 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to make out its case, the Complainant must demonstrate that the following three conditions are 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 interest in respect of the disputed domain name; and
iii. ...D2000-0403 (finding it appropriate for the panel to draw adverse inferences from the respondent’s failure to reply to the complaint) and also Vertical Solutions Management, Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., NAF Claim No. 95095 (holding that the respondent’s default allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complainant to be deemed true).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
As noted by previous UDRP panels, the question under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark, not whether the website to which the domain name resolves will confuse Internet users. ...
2010-11-29 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainants’ 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 Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainants’ name and trademark. The Panel notes that the disputed domain name contains the dictionary word “girlie”, an apparently slang term. ...
2010-11-22 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical and/or confusingly similar to its GREENPLY trade marks, “Greenply” also being the predominant feature of its domain name and its corporate name. ...B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name comprises the word “greenply” and the generic “.net” top-level domain suffix. ...
2010-12-16 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant says that its USPTO trademark has achieved incontestable status and has been in continuous use for over 50 years. ...The dispute is properly within the scope of the Policy and the Panel has jurisdiction to decide the dispute.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has rights in the registered trademark ANDERSON POWER PRODUCTS for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2016-08-23 - Case Details
Complainant also denies Respondent's allegation of violation of his intellectual property rights.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established long-standing use and registration of the trade mark SIEMENS ("Complainant's Trade Mark"). ...As a result, the Panel has no difficulty in finding that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant's Trade Mark.
It is therefore found that Complainant has rights in Complainant's Trade Mark, that Complainant's Trade Mark comprises a dominant and confusing part of the Domain Names, and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy are met.
...
2016-08-16 - Case Details
Since launching the initial version of the platform in 2007, the Complainant has used the Trade Mark in relation to its publishing of online media and its Internet based social networking services, as well as other products and services.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. It consists of the Trade Mark preceded by the letter "g", which is located near the letter "t" on a "QWERTY" keyboard. ...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark and holds that the Complaint fulfills the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2014-09-02 - Case Details
Secondly, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the "Philip Morris" name, in which the Complainant has exclusive rights. The Complainant then alleges that 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 interests. ...The above determination of rights having been made, it is evident that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the trade name "Philip Morris" as it contains the entirety of that trade name, with only the addition of an internal hyphen which does not distinguish it from "Philip Morris" in any meaningful way.
...
2014-10-16 - Case Details
The Domain Name incorporates and is identical or clearly at least confusingly similar to the Trademark and/or the other trademarks in which the Complainant has rights.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
As also described in paragraph 1.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”), the generic Top-Level Domain, in this case, “.mobi”, would usually be disregarded under the test to be applied.
...
2014-10-10 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its EBAY trademark, incorporating the EBAY trademark in its entirety and merely adding the descriptive or non-distinctive element “biologic”.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well-established in decisions under the UDRP that generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) indicators (e.g. “.com”, “.info”, “.net”, “.org”) may be considered irrelevant in assessing confusing similarity between a trademark and a domain name. ...
2014-08-05 - Case Details
Complainant
(1) The disputed domain name is identical or, at least, confusingly similar to the Complainant’s VOLKSWAGEN trade mark. It combines the Complainant’s famous mark in its entirety and the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) “.wang”. ...The Panel therefore concludes that English should be the language of the proceeding.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established it has rights in the trade mark VOLKSWAGEN. The Panel additionally agrees that VOLKSWAGEN is a well-known trade mark. ...
2015-03-09 - Case Details
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 which predate the date of registration of the disputed domain name by over 40 years.
...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark and holds that the Complaint fulfills the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2015-03-16 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Pursuant to article 2.1 of the Regulations, Complainant’s request to transfer the Domain Name must meet three cumulative conditions:
a. the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or trade name protected under Dutch law in which Complainant has rights, or other name by means of article 2.1(a) under II of the Regulations; and
b. ...Considering these conditions, the Panel rules as follows.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant bases its Complaint on the Trademarks. It has submitted a copy of its trademark registrations demonstrating that it is the holder of the Trademarks. ...
2016-11-08 - Case Details
Substantive Issues
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that:
(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark 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.
...Having considered the Complaint and the available evidence, the Panel finds the following:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry – a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trade mark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trade mark.
...
2016-10-31 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names incorporate its trademarks and are confusingly similar to the trademarks. The additional hyphens and letters “id” and either “frds” or “frsd” should not preclude a finding of confusing similarity.
...Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the Respondent is required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding in the event that the Complainant asserts to the applicable dispute-resolution provider, in compliance with the Rules, that:
“(i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith”.
...
2016-10-31 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant argues that both disputed domain names and are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s VOLKSWAGEN trademarks. The Complainant further argues that both disputed domain names integrate its VOLKSWAGEN mark completely.
...Upon considering the above, the Panel determines that English be the language of the proceeding.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2016-10-28 - Case Details