Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove that each of the following requirements are met:
(i) that the domain name registered by the Respondent 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 respect of the domain name; and
(iii) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...(1) As to the requirement under Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy:
The Panel finds that the Domain Name at issue, , is "confusingly similar" to the Complainant's trademark, "ZEGNA", and identical to the dominant part of the trade name, "Zegna Japan Co. ...
2001-08-09 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant alleges that the domain name incorporates in its entirety the Complainant’s registered mark SKUNK WORKS; the Respondent has simply added “motorsports” to the phonetic equivalent of the trademark.
...Panelist exercises
its discretion to draw adverse influence in part because of Respondent’s
express declaration in his email that he did not contest these proceedings,
which he deemed “a big bunch of nonsense,” and “a meaningless
intrigue.”
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the challenged domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s
registered marks because it incorporates the phonetic equivalent of Complainant’s
entire mark. ...
2004-12-06 - Case Details
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following:
(i) that the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights; and,
(ii) that the Respondent has no legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and,
(iii) that the domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.
...Therefore this panel finds that Respondent has a legitimate interest in the use of the disputed domain names.
Identical or Confusingly Similar to Trademark
Given the conclusion that Complainant has not met its burden in relation to showing the existence of bad faith and an absence of legitimate interests under paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and 4(a)(iii) of the ICANN Policy, it is not necessary for the Panel to determine whether the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. ...
2000-12-15 - Case Details
Furthermore, the Panel finds that the domain name "crateandbarrel.net" is confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainant has rights.
6.3 The record does not show any legitimate non-commercial use or fair use by Respondent. ...Decision
7.1 The Panel decides that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks of Complainant, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in such domain name, and that the domain name in issue has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
7.2 The Panel hereby orders that the registration of the domain name be transferred to Complainant.
...
2001-01-29 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
Complainant
Firstly, the Complainant contends that the Domain Names and are identical with or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark JETHRO TULL which is about to be registered in the European Community by the Complainant and which has been extensively used for approximately 30 years.
...Decision
For the reasons stated above, the Panel decides that the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names and the Respondent’s Domain Names have been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2000-07-26 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant submits that (1) the domain name < audi-lamborghini.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.
...Consequently, the domain name is confusingly similar with the trademark AUDI of the Complainant. At the same conclusion arrived the Panelist in the case No D2000-1761 Saab Automobile AB v Joakim Nordberg, confirming similarity of the domain name with the trademarks SAAB and OPEL.
2) Legitimate rights or interests in respect of the domain name
The terms "audi" and "lamborghini" are not a descriptive words, in which the Respondent might have an interest. ...
2001-03-16 - Case Details
The Complainant further states that the disputed domain name, registered by Respondent, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trade mark.
Complainant also states that it entered into a commercial relationship with Respondent’s US subsidiary, Darsatex Clothing. ...Complainant therefore met the burden of proving that Respondent is the registrant of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to the trade marks owned by Complainant.
(ii) There is no evidence on the record that indicates that Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...
2002-09-13 - Case Details
The impugned domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark "IIT Powai". Due to long and extensive the Complainant has gained common law rights over the trademark "IIT Powai"
Rights/ Legitimate interest
5.2. ...Decision
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Panel decides that the domain name
registered by the Respondent is identical and 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 at issue, and
that the Respondent’s domain name has been registered and is being used
in bad faith. ...
2002-06-18 - Case Details
The fact that the domain names are identical and/or confusingly similar shows that the Respondent "would be intending for commercial gain misleadingly to divert consumers and /or to tarnish the trademarks at issue".
...Identity or Confusing similarity
The Panel finds that all the conflicting domain names are either identical or confusingly similar to at least one of Complainant’s trademarks.
In connection with the identity or confusing similarity, the Panel finds that
the question of whether the terms and phrases that integrate the domain names
are generic, could not be answered without considering each particular case
and trademark. ...
2003-02-05 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the legitimate owner of all rights arising out of and in connection with the trademark DANCOW. ...Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s registered trademarks. ...
2002-12-12 - Case Details
Identical or confusingly similar Domain Name: Policy 4(a)(i)
The domain names at issue are , and . ...Decision
In view of the circumstances and facts discussed above, the Panelist decides that the disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the registered trade mark in which the Complainant has rights, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names, and that the Respondent's Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
...
2001-06-14 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
The onus is on the Complainant to prove each of the three elements set out
in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, as follows:
(i) the 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
domain name; and
(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
As to element (i) the Domain Name is clearly identical to the Trademark.
The fact that the words "le" and "chateau" are separated
in the Trademark but not in the Domain Name is immaterial.
...
2003-04-29 - Case Details
Under Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, Complainant must prove each of the following:
(i) the domain name in issue is identical or confusingly similar to complainant’s trademark or service mark;
(ii) respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and,
(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Therefore the Panelist finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks pursuant to the Policy Par. 4(a)(i).
Rights or Legitimate Interests
According to Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, Complainant must prove that
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. ...
2003-03-19 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
In order for the Complainant to prevail and have the disputed domain name transferred to it, Complainant must prove the following (the Policy, paragraph 4 (a)(i-iii):
- the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
- the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
- the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant concedes it does not have a registered trademark for the word
"Sealite" as used to refer to marine lighting products. ...Decision
The Panel has found the Complainant failed to show that the disputed domain name, , is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights per the Policy at paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2003-06-20 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant submits that (1) the domain name 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.
...The domain name is also confusingly similar to the trademark SAMSUNG, in which the Complainant has rights in many countries all over the world, including Korea and the United States, where the Respondent is located, and which is well-known in these countries. ...
2003-12-02 - 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;
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name;
(iii) The Respondent's domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Panel proceeds to deal with each of these in turn
(i) The Respondent's domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights
The Panel has already found that the Complainant has trading rights in respect of the name VISTA. ...
2002-10-25 - Case Details
These elements are that:
(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 interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) The Respondent's domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Moreover, as the Complainant PIONEER HI-BRED has its own website "pioneer.com" and the associated domain name, any other website and domain name such as would be confusingly similar.
The PIONEER name alone is a sufficiently descriptive or generic word or name such that it on its own and without more could not sustain a claim to protection absent a very substantial body of evidence supporting such a claim. ...
2002-11-08 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical and confusingly similar to its trademark GAGGIA.
The Complainant explains that on December 24, 2002, its legal counsel sent to the Respondent, by e-mail and regular mail, a letter informing about the Complainant’s rights in the trademark GAGGIA and inquiring very politely about the possible interests of the Respondent in the disputed domain name. ...Discussion and Findings
Default does not relieve the Complainant from proving that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar with the trademark or service mark in which it has rights, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and that the disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith (paragraph 4(a) of the Policy). ...
2004-02-23 - Case Details
Respondent
Respondent contends that:
- The Domain Name is not identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's trademarks or service marks; and
- Respondent has a legitimate interest in respect of the Domain Name; and
- The Domain Name was not registered and is not used in bad faith.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name is . As set forth above, and not challenged by Respondent, Complainant owns various national and international trademarks in the denomination "T-DSL".
...
2004-04-29 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for a Complaint to succeed, the Complainant must prove that:
(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.
...Therefore this Panel declines to grant the transfer solely on the basis of the respondent’s consent, but elects to proceed to a substantive determination of the merits in accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the owner of the trademark CONFO. Because the added top level domain name (“.org”) may be ignored when assessing the risk of confusion, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the trademark of the Complainant. ...
2012-01-11 - Case Details