(6) Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the AIR LIQUIDE trademark owned by and registered to Complainant.
(7) Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name...Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant contends that it owns the registrations for the trademark AIR LIQUIDE in France and the trademark AL AIR LIQUIDE in Korea. ...
2010-04-20 - Case Details
It seeks the transfer of the disputed domain names on the grounds that:
- The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
- The Respondent has 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.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name differs from the mark INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS AND RESORTS only in the omission of the conjunction “and”. ...
2010-08-10 - Case Details
Complainants
The Complainants allege that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainants' COSTCO trademarks, because they consist of the Complainants' well-known registered trademark COSTCO together with the common terms “baby” and “family.”
...Consequently, the Panel must proceed with an assessment of the Complaint on its merits.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Previous UDRP panels have held that the addition of common terms to a registered trademark and registration of the result as a domain name does not necessarily mitigate the confusing similarity between the domain name and the included mark (EAuto, L.L.C. v. ...
2010-08-09 - Case Details
Domain names which differ from a trademark by only minor variations have a greater tendency to be confusingly similar to the trademark where the trademark is highly distinctive. There is a close similarity both aurally and visually between the domain names and Complainant's mark. (...) The Panel finds that the domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's mark.” ainsi que la décision Crédit Industriel et Commercial, Conféderation Nationale du Crédit Mutuel v. ...
2010-05-20 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's IIFL service mark, that Respondent's business cannot be considered legitimate and that Respondent is trying to exploit the goodwill associated with the Complainant's mark. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant contends that Respondent is a “career cybersquatter” because he has registered 1400 domain names. ...
2010-07-01 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant is the owner of the trademark “Simple Truths” (Registration No. 2973764) and it sells books and other products on its website of the same name . ...The Panel here finds both and to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant relies solely on the USPTO decision and the related actions to form the basis for its argument that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. ...
2010-10-05 - 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
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
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
Complainant
(i) The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the EPIDUO trademark and that the use of the generic term “review” does not have any impact on the overall impression of the dominant part of the domain name.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the EPIDUO trademark, which it incorporates in its entirety.
Thus, the Complainant has satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2011-04-19 - 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 Italian registrations for PRODEGIL90 (&design), as noted under Section 4, “Factual Background” above.
...In view of the foregoing, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names and are confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights, and therefore, the Complainant has succeeded on this first element under the Policy.
...
2011-04-14 - 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
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s word and device mark, and is identical to the Complainant’s word mark. Accordingly, this Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar and identical to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant expressly contested the authenticity of the identity of the Respondent. ...
2011-09-01 - Case Details
Thus, Panel finds for the Complainant on the first element, that Respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights and has duties to the grandparent corporation.
...That the MIELE.NET domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights;
2. That the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the MIELE.NET domain name; and
3. ...
2000-09-20 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
Complainant contends that Respondent makes impermissible use of the disputed domain name as it is identical, or confusingly similar, with its registered trademarks, and that a true confusion has resulted. Complainant further contends that Respondent makes no bona fide offerings of goods or services under the disputed domain name. ...The Panel does not find it necessary finally to resolve the competing claims regarding the extent of Complainant’s rights in the marks or whether the disputed domain is identical or confusingly similar to the claimed marks. Regardless of the extent of Complainant’s rights in the marks it does not succeed in this proceeding, as it does not meet its burden under the other elements of the Policy’s test.
...
2004-06-25 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that:
(1) Each of the domain names in issue is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MEMBERS EQUITY trade mark. The omission of the letter “s” from the end of the word “Members” in three of the domain name registrations is an insubstantial difference. ...Discussion and Findings
The burden for the Complainant, under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, is to show all three elements before an order for the transfer of the disputed domain names can be made.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established rights in the trade mark MEMBERS EQUITY, and it is the view of the Panel that the domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark as they all incorporate MEMBERS EQUITY/MEMBER EQUITY as the first element. ...
2005-06-23 - Case Details
It is further well established that the specific top level of the domain name such as ".net" or ".com" does not affect a domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark (See e.g. Busy Body, Inc. v. Fitness Outlet Inc., WIPO D2000-0127, paragraph. 6).
...Decision
For all of the foregoing reasons, this Panel decides that the Domain Name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, and that the Respondent registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith. ...
2000-11-09 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainants must prove to the Panel that the following three circumstances are present in this case in order to obtain the transfer of the Domain Name:
(A) that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainants have rights; and
(B) that the Respondent does not hold rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(C) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used by the Respondent in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element required by the Policy is that the Domain Name and the GRAN CENTENARIO trademarks are identical or confusingly similar.
...
2005-12-13 - Case Details