(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
Discussion and Findings
6.1 Elements to be proven
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy envisages that for the Complaint to succeed, the Complainant must establish that:
(i) the Respondent’s Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) the Respondent’s Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...D2000-0140 notes that under the Policy, even if the respondent
is in default,
"…the complainant must prove that each of these three elements are present."
6.2 Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant claims and has established first use and ownership of the MOE GINSBURG mark. ...
2001-03-30 - Case Details
The Policy contains
in its Paragraph 4(a) the elements to be pleaded in order for a mandatory administrative
proceeding such as this one to be held: Complainant must allege that a (i) Respondent’s
domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark
in which the Complainant has rights; that (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests in the domain name; and that (iii) Respondent’s domain name has been
registered and is being used in bad faith. ...Complainant avers that
(1) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s "Cvsup"
product name referred to in Section 4 of this decision; (2) the Respondents
have no rights or legitimate interests in the trade name; and (3) the domain
name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2001-07-03 - Case Details
These elements are that:
(i)Respondent’s domain
name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which
the 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.
...The Panel
determines that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s
mark in the sense of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
Complainant has met the
burden of proving that Respondent is the registrant of a domain name that is
identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has
rights, and it has thus established the first of the three elements necessary
to a finding that Respondent has engaged in abusive domain name registration.
...
2001-07-03 - Case Details
These are as follows:-
(i) The Respondent’s 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
domain name; and
(iii) The Respondent’s domain name has been registered and is being used in
bad faith.
...i) The Respondents domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a
trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant submits that the three domain names in dispute are identical
to the Complainant's registered mark save for the use of the hyphens between
"reg" and "vardy" in the domain name. ...
2001-07-13 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant submits that (1) the domain name < agabekov.com> is identical 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 domain name; (3) the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Discussion and findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements that the Complainant must prove to merit a finding that the domain name of the Respondent be transferred to the Complainant:
1) The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
2) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith...
2001-08-06 - Case Details