Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to establish 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 domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established to the satisfaction of this Panel that it has rights in the ARCELORMITTAL trademark acquired inter alia through its ownership of the international trademark no. 947686 registered on August 3, 2007.
...
2019-06-27 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed in this administrative proceeding, 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 was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...These elements are discussed in turn below.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The terms “loto” and “foot” used in the domain name registered by the Respondent are exactly the same as reflected in the Complainant’s trademark LOTO FOOT. ...
2019-06-13 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element the Complainant must have trade or service mark rights and the Domain Name must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade or service mark.
...It has not been authorized by the Complainant to register or use the Domain Name or to seek the registration of any domain name incorporating the ARAMEX Mark or a mark similar to the ARAMEX Mark. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name or any similar name.
...
2021-07-26 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the owner of the registered trademark ACTELION as a word mark in numerous countries all over the world including the United States, and these registrations include International Trademark Registration No. 869983 (registered in 2005), United States Trademark Registration No. 3148269 (registered in 2006), United States Trademark Registration No. 3957047 (registered in 2011) and United States Trademark Registration No. 3922607 (registered in 2011) show. ...As a consequence, the Panel finds that the Complaint succeeds under the first element of the Policy, by proving that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The consensus view of UDRP panels on the onus of proof under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is summarized in paragraph 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 2.0, whereby: “[…] a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. ...
2016-10-04 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends as follows:
1. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CASHNETUSA marks, differing only by the addition of the numerals “247”, which presumably refer to 24-hour, seven-day-a-week availability.
2. ...WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), paragraph 4.3.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name’s dominant feature, “cashnetusa”, is identical to the Complainant’s USPTO‑registered marks. ...
2017-06-02 - Case Details
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a complainant can only succeed in an administrative proceeding under the Policy if the following circumstances are met:
(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.
The Panel will further analyze the potential concurrence of the above circumstances.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established rights in the LIN EDUCATION trademark.
The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant's trademark LIN EDUCATION in its entirety and with correct spelling.
...
2017-11-21 - Case Details
The selling price of USD 8,500 merely matches supply and demand and in the absence of any other indicia of bad faith should not lead to a finding of bad faith.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
On the basis of the evidence of the Complainant’s Danish trade mark registrations referred to above the Panel finds that it has rights in the trade mark MONTAR incorporating the horse device.
...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trade mark MONTAR incorporating the horse device in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2018-10-16 - Case Details
The Respondent further requested that the proceeding be
suspended pursuant to paragraph 17(a) of the Rules to allow an amicable settlement.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-02-25 - Case Details
page 3
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...The Complainant’s trademark ANUA is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the
disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0,
section 1.7.
Although the addition of other terms (here the term “pure”) may bear on assessment of the second and third
elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between
the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2025-03-26 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel decides to consolidate the disputes regarding the nominally different disputed domain
name registrants (referred to below as “the Respondent”) in a single proceeding.
6.2. Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondents
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-01-13 - Case Details
Complainant
According to the Complainant the Domain Name used by the Respondent is confusingly similar to the German trademark 1136660 “AD.KRAUTH” as it uses the identical letters in the same order, except for the prefix “AD”. ...He requests the Panel to find there is reverse domain
name hijacking.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There is no doubt that the Domain Name is similar to the trademark AD.KRAUTH and identical to the distinguishing sign KRAUTH to which the Complainant has common law rights in Germany. ...
2005-06-22 - Case Details
Under paragraph 4.a of the Policy, the Complainants must prove each of the following:
(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainants’ trademark or service mark; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances any one of which, if proved by the Respondent, shall be evidence of the Respondent’s rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name for the purpose of paragraph 4(a)(ii) above.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainants have submitted evidence of their ownership of registrations for the mark “DR. ...
2011-04-19 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that it owns rights in the range of DR GILLIAN McKEITH trade marks based on its trade mark registrations and use of the marks.
The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark DR GILLIAN McKEITH. The only difference between the domain name and the Complainant’s trade mark is the title “dr” which appears in the Complainant’s trade mark. ...
2007-10-02 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
For this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name, the Complainant must prove that:
(i) the 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 Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has uncontested rights in the Mark, both by virtue of its trademark registration and as a result of the goodwill and reputation acquired through its use of the WAIN ROY mark, including use by its predecessor, for almost 75 years.
...
2022-02-21 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has never authorized the Respondent to register a domain name incorporating its trademark. The Respondent’s name is in no way similar to the Complainant’s trademark SPODE, and, therefore, it is inconceivable that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name.
...
2021-09-16 - 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.
...The Respondent has, however, not submitted a formal Response or disputed the Complainant’s contentions and evidence in this proceeding.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided evidence that it is the owner of the FREEDOM FINANCE trademark. ...
2021-12-15 - 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
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that Complainant must prove each of the following:
(i) that the Domain Name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;
(ii) that 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.
...Thus, the Administrative Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s FEDLINE and FEDLINE ADVANTAGE marks.
B. No Legitimate Interests
There is no evidence in the record of any rights or legitimate interest of Respondent in the FEDLINE ADVANTAGE mark included in the Domain Name, such as Respondent’s use of a corresponding name to offer goods or services; Respondent being known by a corresponding name; or Respondent making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name.
...
2005-01-24 - Case Details
Substantive Issues
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three tests which a Complainant must satisfy in order to succeed:
(i) the 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 domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
(i) Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant does not have any registered trademark for REGISTRUL COMERTULUI. The Panel accepts that this is not fatal in connection with paragraph 4(a)(i), providing that a sufficient quantum of “common law” rights can be proved to exist. ...
2004-06-15 - Case Details
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of
the following:
1) 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;
and
2) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the
domain name; and
3) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant’s mark "RAPALA" is a distinctive word that is registered
and has been used in a number of European countries.
...
2002-07-02 - Case Details