About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

Full Text Search on WIPO Panel Decisions

Found 57807   document(s)s (0.057 sec)

Rows

<<  <  51041 - 51060  >  >>

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2005-0770 for ambien-information.com, best-price-ambien.com, cheap-generic-ambien.com html (12 KB)

Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.   6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar As a starting point, the Panel notes that the Complainant uses the trademark AMBIEN in all of the disputed domain names; there is no disputing the fact that the Respondent is using the trademark of the Complainant in the domain names. ...Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the registered trademark of the Complainant. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The trademark AMBIEN belongs to the Complainant and is used and registered by it since 1993. ...

2005-10-24 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2007-0019 for peekundkloppenburg.com html (12 KB)

Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.   6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The domain name, if not absolutely identical, is very similar to the Complainant registered trademark PEEK UND CLOPPENBURG. ...Consequently the panel finds that the domain name at issue is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant, nor does it have the permission, consent or license of the Complainant to register the domain name at issue. ...

2007-04-02 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2006-0603 for mikeschmidt.com html (13 KB)

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. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Panels have long held that the addition of a gTLD suffix is irrelevant in an examination of identicality. ...

2006-08-03 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2006-0225 for tamiflu-store.com html (12 KB)

It has therefore not contested the allegations of the Complaint and the Panel shall decide on the basis of the Complainant’s submissions, and all inferences that can reasonably be drawn therefrom (Rules, paragraph 14(b)).   6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The domain name consists of a combination of the Complainant’s well-known trademark with the descriptive term “store” (the gTLD “.com” cannot be taken into consideration when judging confusing similarity between the domain name and the Complainant’s trademark). ...In conclusion the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark TAMIFLU of the Complainant. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has not licensed or otherwise consented to the use of its trademark TAMIFLU to the Respondent. ...

2006-04-21 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2010-0079 for 7days.com html (10 KB)

In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed in this proceeding, the Complainant must prove (i) that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which it 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. ...This includes the acceptance of plausible evidence of the Complainant which has not been disputed. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the Complainant has registered and unregistered rights in the mark 7DAYS. ...

2010-03-11 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2010-1042 for nameyourpricescanning.com, nameyourpriceshredding.com, pricelineshredding.com html (12 KB)

The Panel will proceed to evaluate Complainant's evidence, and his own examination of Respondent’s website, against the requirements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar. Complainant has demonstrated rights in its PRICELINE and NAME YOUR OWN PRICE marks sufficient to invoke the Policy. One of the disputed domain names incorporates the PRICELINE mark as its dominant feature, and the other two are confusingly similar to the NAME YOUR OWN PRICE marks. A long string of unbroken precedent holds that when the marks at issue are incorporated as the dominant feature of a domain name, for Policy purposes confusion is not obviated by addition of an everyday descriptive word. ...

2010-08-19 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2007-1557 for wwwrockstargames.com html (12 KB)

Discussion and Findings In order for the disputed domain name to be transferred to the Complainant, the Complainant must have demonstrated, in accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, 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 Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has rights in the trademark ROCKSTAR GAMES. ...

2008-01-08 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2007-0374 for stan-james.com html (12 KB)

Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant submits: 1. The Respondent has registered a domain name that is “clearly” identical to the trademark of the Complainant which could cause confusion in the minds of potential customers looking to find the Complainants website. ...The Complainant submits that the Respondent in using the domain name has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating confusion with the Complainant.   6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel is satisfied from the Complainant’s evidence that it has unregistered trademark rights in the mark STAN JAMES. ...

2007-06-13 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision DRO2007-0003 for teleroute.ro html (13 KB)

Discussion and Findings The burden for the Complainant under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is to prove: (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 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. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant alleges and the Respondent agrees that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s TELEROUTE mark. ...

2007-07-16 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2014-1799 for ihopgiftcards.com html (11 KB)

Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name is not identical to the Complainant's IHOP trademark, for which it has obtained registration in the United States and a number of other countries. ...Therefore the Panel holds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's IHOP trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has not afforded the Respondent any rights in the disputed domain name or in the trademark IHOP. ...

2014-12-23 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2015-0245 for valerocard.com html (11 KB)

Complainant The Complainant alleges that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s VALERO mark because it is comprised of the VALERO mark in its entirety, plus the addition of the generic word “card” and the generic Top-Level Domain extension “.com”. ...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 a number of VALERO marks registered in the United States, including US Registration No. 1,314,004, US Registration No. 2,560,091, US Registration No. 2,656,971, and US Registration No. 3,108,715. ...

2015-05-07 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2009-1587 for wattyl.com html (11 KB)

Discussion and Findings The Panel has reviewed the Complaint and supporting evidence and finds that the Complaint is made out. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar There is no doubt that the addition of the suffix “.com” does not serve to vary a mark. The Complainant has shown that it has rights in the WATTYL mark and that the disputed domain name incorporates that mark and simply adds “.com” to it. The disputed domain name is thus confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights and the first element of the Policy is made out. ...

2010-02-10 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2009-1719 for breadbecker.com html (11 KB)

Discussion and Findings The Panel finds that Complainant owns common-law trademark rights in the mark THE BREAD BECKERS; that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark; that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, and that the domain name was registered and used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Complainant has been using the mark THE BREAD BECKERS in commerce for twelve years in connection with the bread business and related goods and services. ...

2010-02-10 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2011-1383 for aldi-discount.com html (11 KB)

Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name is not identical to the Complainant’s trademark ALDI. However, the additional inclusion of the generic term “discount” does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark and business name. ...Therefore the Panel holds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ALDI trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name or by the term “Aldi”. ...

2011-10-31 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2013-0141 for fidelityrecruitmentuk.com html (11 KB)

Discussion and Findings The factual foundation of the Complainant’s contentions, as presented by the Complainant, while supporting its non-contradicted request for transfer of the disputed domain name by written evidence and ample reference to earlier UDRP decisions, leads the Panel to the following conclusions: A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant’s multi-registered and well-known trademark FIDELITY together with the word “recruitmentuk”. ...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered and well known trademark FIDELITY and those other Complainant’s FIDELITY trademarks with specifications that have been listed above under Section 4. ...

2013-03-27 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2012-0471 for berkadia.biz html (11 KB)

D2000-0011 among numerous other UDRP decisions. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar As to element (i) of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Panel acknowledges that the test concerning identity or confusing similarity is a factual one that should be satisfied by making a side-by-side comparison of Complainant’s trademark BERKADIA and the Domain Name, taking into account the degree of aural, visual, or conceptual similarity between the two, the similarity of the goods and services for which they are used and the inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the trademark. ...The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has sufficient trademark rights and that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BERKADIA trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests To determine whether Respondent possesses rights or legitimate interests concerning the Domain Name, the Panel should, but without limitation, consider the following: 1. ...

2012-05-15 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2012-0350 for drmartens2011.com, onlydrmartensuk.com html (11 KB)

Complainant The Complainant contends that: 1) The Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark registrations. The Disputed Domain Names comprise the only characterizing element “drmartens” and the descriptive elements “2011”, “only” and “uk” which do not assist to avoid the risk of confusion; 2) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names. ...The Panel proceeds to consider these 3 conditions below. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainants clearly have rights in the trade mark DR MARTENS by virtue of their trade mark registrations. ...

2012-05-04 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision DAM2012-0001 for allianz.am html (11 KB)

Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following: (i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and (iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant is, according to the submitted evidence, the owner of the registered trademark ALLIANZ. ...

2012-12-03 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2014-2034 for bayard-services.info html (12 KB)

The domain name in dispute is confusingly similar to the trademarks because it reproduces letter by letter the BAYARD trademarks with the addition of the generic term "services" which does not make the disputed domain in issue distinctive. ...Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel has considered the evidence set out above of the Complainant's trademark rights and its long history of trading using the marks BAYARD or BAYARD PRESSE. ...

2015-01-21 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2014-1949 for statoil.name html (12 KB)

Under the Policy, 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; (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. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well established that gTLDs may typically be disregarded in the assessment under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy (e.g., Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...

2015-01-15 - Case Details