Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to divest the Respondent of the disputed domain name, the Complainant must demonstrate each of the following:
(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.
...In the interests of fairness, the Respondent’s supplemental filing filed on July 31, 2018 is also admitted.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There is no dispute between the parties that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademarks.
...
2018-09-03 - Case Details
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
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
Complainant
The Complainant contends that:
a) The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark MICHELIN. The extension “.xyz” should not be taken into consideration when assessing the confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the trademark;
b) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. ...The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark MICHELIN and holds that the first limb of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is established.
...
2017-08-14 - Case Details
As indicated in section 3 above the Panel accedes to the Complainant's request that the Second Domain Name be added to this administrative proceeding.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The First Domain Name comprises the Complainant's ZELLER+GMELIN trade mark (albeit replacing the "+" with a hyphen) and the ".ir" country-code Top Level Domain ("ccTLD") identifier. ...The Panel finds that the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to trade marks in which the Complainant has rights.
D. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered the Domain Names without the Complainant's permission yet knowing that they featured trade marks of the Complainant. ...
2017-08-03 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Marks, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, and the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. Accordingly, the first element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been made out.
...
2017-07-28 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
A. Complainant
(i) Identical or confusingly similar
Complainant has submitted evidence of ownership of a number of registered trademarks, as indicated above. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in its DR. JACOB'S trademark, based on its trademark registrations in numerous jurisdictions. ...
2017-12-19 - 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
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
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 ARCELORMITTAL by virtue of its use and registration of the same as trade mark.
...The addition of the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".link" does not impact the analysis of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark in the instant case.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's trade mark.
...
2018-02-21 - Case Details
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
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has demonstrated rights through registration and use of the GEA and GEA GROUP marks.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar with the GEA and GEA GROUP trademarks of Complainant.
The Domain Name incorporates the said trademarks of Complainant in their entirety. ...
2019-04-12 - 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
The burden of proof of each element is borne by the Complainant.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant does not allege that it has registered trademark rights in any jurisdiction. ...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 auDRP.
...
2019-03-06 - 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 United States registered trade mark 0611710 for BMW that was registered many decades prior to each of the disputed domain names. ...As a result, the Panel finds that each of the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BMW mark and that the Complaint therefore succeeds under this element of the Policy.
...
2018-07-20 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights, through registration and use, in the marks
VENTE-PRIVEE and VENTE-PRIVEE.COM. The Panel further concludes that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to these marks. The VENTE PRIVEE mark is incorporated in its entirety in each of the Domain Names. ...
2018-07-16 - 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 ESSELUNGA by virtue of its use and registration of the same as a trade mark.
...The addition of the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".tech" 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.
...
2018-07-16 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove that the Respondent has registered a domain name which is:
(i) identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which a complainant has rights; and
(ii) that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...It is well-established principle that the addition of a gTLD is irrelevant when considering, whether a trademark is identical or confusingly similar or not, under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, because gTLDs are viewed as a standard registration requirement, see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0”), see also Idle Media, Inc. v. ...
2018-04-09 - Case Details