According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its mark. The Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
The Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because he “does not run any business under the name and in style of Core Diagnostic” and “a perusal of the said website clearly shows that only mere information has [sic] given therein”.
...For the reasons set forth below, the Panel will not summarize the remainder of the Response.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
For the reasons set forth below, the Panel will not consider this element of the Policy. ...
2013-09-02 - Case Details
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant bears the burden of showing:
(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 respect of 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 disputed domain name incorporates the trademark VUARNET in its entirety.
Previous UDRP panels have held that when a domain name wholly incorporates a complainant’s registered trademark that may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy. ...
2014-01-30 - Case Details
Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant's registered trademark is the principal part of the disputed domain name. ...The Panel therefore concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the registered trademark of Complainant.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The second legal ground to be demonstrated by Complainant, according to the provisions of the Policy, is Respondent's absence of any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, per paragraph 4(c)(i) – (iii).
...
2014-09-23 - Case Details
Those elements are:
(i) that the disputed domain name 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 disputed domain name; and
page 3
(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...See
WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 4.3.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has shown that it has rights in the French registered figurative trademarks “AÉMA
GROUPE”, No. 4661460, registered on January 8, 2021, and No. 4690131, registered on February 11, 2022.
...
2023-08-03 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark or service
mark in which the Complainant has rights. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s
trademark in full. ...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
page 3
The Complainant owns trademark registrations for BAYER. The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has
established its ownership of the trademark BAYER.
...
2022-04-21 - Case Details
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 INSTAGRAM trademark of the Complainant. ...Therefore, the Panel holds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the INSTAGRAM trade mark of the Complainant.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions, and used a privacy service to disguise his identity. ...
2022-02-02 - Case Details
The Panel thus determines that the language of the proceeding shall be English and the decision will be rendered in English.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar to the Complainant’s Name or Mark in which the Complainant has Civil Rights or Interests
Based on the trademark registrations provided by the Complainant, the Panel accepts that the Complainant enjoys rights in the DEUTZ trademark in China.
...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the DEUTZ trademark in which the Complainant has civil rights or interests. The Complainant has satisfied Article 8(a) of the Policy.
...
2022-01-21 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the
Complainant’s trademark and the Domain Name. ...Moreover, panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is confusingly
similar (particularly domain names comprising typos) to a famous or widely-known trademark by an
unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. ...
2023-07-07 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions, except that the Respondent informed the
Center by email that “The website in question is closed, and we will not start the website again.”
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...The Panel finds the mark is recognizable 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.
While the addition of other terms, here “congress”, 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. ...
2023-12-06 - Case Details
Respondent
Respondent did not reply to the Complaint.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the trademark registrations, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the OBAGI mark. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the OBAGI mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety and the addition of the “-me” and the generic Top-Level Domain “.com” are not sufficient to dispel the confusing similarity with Complainant’s mark. ...
2017-07-18 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, Complainant carries the burden of proving:
(i) That the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(ii) That Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) That the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Respondent’s default in the case at hand does not automatically result in a decision in favor of Complainant, however, paragraph 5(e) of the Rules provides that if Respondent does not submit a Response, in the absence of special circumstances, the Panel is to decide the dispute based upon the Complaint.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is identical to the CACEIS trademark in which Complainant has shown to have rights. ...
2016-03-08 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Domain Name:
(i) the 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) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant holds rights in its registered trademark DAFEA. The Domain Name is identical to that mark.
...
2016-03-07 - Case Details
Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is clear that Complainant has for many years used and sought protection for the Trademark in connection with software in the financial and information technology sectors and related consulting services area. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds:
a) Complainant has established rights in respect of the Trademark;
b) The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's Trademark;
and that the first element of the Policy has been met.
B. ...
2016-04-15 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant maintains that the disputed domain names contain the entirety of the trademark ZANUSSI and are confusingly similar to it. The Complainant further asserts that the Respondent has not been granted any rights in that trademark or any permission to register and use the disputed domain names, and that such use wrongly suggests that there is some official or authorized link between the Respondent's activities and site and the Complainant. ...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain names both contain the entirety of the Complainant's registered ZANUSSI trademark followed by a hyphen and the letters "eg". ...
2016-04-11 - Case Details
The Complainant also claims that, in connection with toys, it is omnipresent on the Internet, with its main website at “www.lego.com” and that the domain name is confusingly similar to the above mentioned famous LEGO trademarks. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, which was registered and used in bad faith.
...The Respondent also denies that the website is automatically generated and claims it was generated out of interest, not to generate revenue and consequently, the disputed domain name is not used in bad faith.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant owns registered rights in the trademark LEGO. This trademark is fully integrated in the disputed domain name. ...
2017-03-23 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar or identical to the Trade Mark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...In all the circumstances, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English.
6.2 Substantive Elements of the Policy
The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark acquired through use and registration.
...
2017-03-30 - Case Details
Otherwise he would file a court action in the Republic of Korea.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated that it owns registered trade mark rights for its NALLI mark, in particular, in India under trade mark registration 472754 and in European Union under trade mark registration number 005690839. ...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name wholly contains the NALLI mark and is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trade marks.
Accordingly, the Complaint succeeds under this element of the Policy.
...
2017-09-11 - Case Details
Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established to the satisfaction of the Panel that Complainant's Trademarks have been used and/or registered since at least 2012 in relation to tattoo artistry and related goods and services and that the artist Kat Von D is well known through her television and other public appearances.
...b) The Domain Name is not identical to but for the reasons set out above confusingly similar to Complainant's Trademarks.
Accordingly, the Panel is satisfied that the first element of the Policy has been met.
...
2018-03-05 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant bears the burden of proving that:
(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.
...The failure of the Complainant to prove any one of them means the Complaint must be denied.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the registered proprietor of the Trade Mark. The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark.
...
2017-11-21 - Case Details
Complainant
A summary of the Complainant’s contentions is as follows:
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark. It consists of the Complainant’s trade mark, with the terms “AEW” and “UK” separated by a hyphen. ...The Panel has nonetheless decided to admit this in accordance with its powers under paragraph 10(d) of the Rules but to bear in mind the Response’s non-compliance with the Rules, including in particular the absence of a statement of truth, when weighing up the Respondent’s assertions in this case.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established registered trade mark rights in the term “AEW UK”as well as unregistered rights deriving from its extensive trading activity under that name.
...
2019-04-03 - Case Details