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
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 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.
...The Complainant submitted a Supplemental Filing which the Panel has reviewed but essentially just restates the Complaint.
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 the Trade Mark.
...
2018-10-08 - Case Details
The Complainants contend that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the OTTERBOX and LIFEPROOF trademarks in which the First Complainant and the Second Complainant, respectively, own rights, and that the additional descriptive word “superstore” does not affect the assessment of confusing similarity, as a descriptive term contained within a domain name does not distinguish the domain name from a complainant’s registered trademark. ...For these reasons, the Panel permits the consolidation of each Complainant’s complaint against the Respondent.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name incorporates the whole of the Second Complainant’s registered word trademark LIFEPROOF, and adds the word “superstore”. ...
2018-10-26 - 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
Hence, the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the trade mark SOFITEL in which the Complainants have rights.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. ...The SOFITEL trade mark is immediately identifiable in the disputed domain names. The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainants’ registered SOFITEL trade mark. The addition of the letters “zd”, and the gTLDs do nothing to remove the confusing similarity. ...
2018-07-03 - 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
The Complainant says the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark STATOIL and that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” may be disregarded. ...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 holds rights as required under the Policy in the registered trademark STATOIL. ...
2018-05-31 - 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 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
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has demonstrated rights through registration and use on the PETPLAN mark.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the PETPLAN trademark of Complainant.
The Domain Name incorporates the trademark of Complainant in its entirety. ...
2018-11-07 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The first part, “strik”, is the Danish word for “knitwear” and the Complainant produces items such as T-shirts. ...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 Complainant’s European Trademark registration number 9284191 is for ERREA’, incorporating a trailing apostrophe, as also appears in the Complainant’s name ERREA’ SPORT S.p.A. ...
2019-02-06 - Case Details
These elements will be examined in turn below.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar to a name in respect of which a right or rights are recognized or established by national law of a Member State and/or Community law
The Complainant has submitted trademark applications as amounting to a right recognized or established by the national law of a Member State and/or Community law under ADR Rules Paragraph B1(9). ...Therefore the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trademarks and that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement of paragraph B(11)(d)(1) of the ADR Rules.
...
2019-02-05 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s PERNOD RICARD mark. The Complainant has rights in the PERNOD RICARD mark by virtue of its trademark registrations. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the PERNOD RICARD mark. The Complainant has established that it is the owner of trademark registrations of the PERNOD RICARD mark in many jurisdictions.
...
2019-01-18 - Case Details
- The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark WHATSAPP. The addition of the descriptive terms “bulk” as a prefix and “sender” as a suffix and of the gTDL”.biz”, does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity...Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove 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.
...
2019-05-03 - 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
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