She claims that the Domain Name is identical to or confusingly similar to those trade marks.
5.3 She claims that she has not authorised or licensed the Respondent to use her trade marks and that the Respondent has no legitimate right to use them. ...English will remain the language of these proceedings.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.8 The Panel accepts that the Domain Name can only be understood as the words “Paris”, “Hilton” and “Heiress” in combination with the “.com” TLD. ...
2010-10-11 - Case Details
In any event, as discussed below, the proposed Reply would not have affected the outcome for the reasons discussed below.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There are two parts to this inquiry: does the Complainant have trademark rights and, if so, is the disputed domain name identical or confusingly similar to that mark?
...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is at least confusingly similar to the Complainant's Trademark.
B. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
In the circumstances of the present case, the Panel next proceeds to consider the third requirement: whether or not the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2010-05-26 - Case Details
Therefore, this
dispute is properly within the scope of the Policy and the Administrative Panel
has jurisdiction to decide the dispute.
2) The
Submission of the Respondent to this Panel Administrative Proceeding
In accordance with Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Respondent is required to submit to
a mandatory administrative proceeding because (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 was
registered and is being used in bad faith.
3) Identical
or Confusingly Similar [Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy and
Paragraph 3(b)(ix) of the Rules]
The domain name <日立.tv> is the Kanji characters of
HITACHI which is identical to the Mark in its entirety.
...D2000-1557, regarding ,
and respectively, which were all transferred to Hitachi
because they were found to be prima facie identical or confusingly similar
to its MARK since the dominant portion of each domain name comprised Hitachi's
distinctive MARK in its entirety, and the additional elements were all descriptive
and generic that were found to add nothing to the domain names as a whole.
...
2002-04-02 - Case Details
Therefore, this dispute
is properly within the scope of the Policy and the Administrative Panel has jurisdiction
to decide the dispute.
2) The Submission of the Respondent to this Panel Administrative Proceeding
In accordance with Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Respondent is required to submit
to a mandatory administrative proceeding because (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 was registered and is being used in bad faith.
3) Identical or Confusingly Similar [Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy and
Paragraph 3(b)(ix) of the Rules]
The domain name <日立.tv> is the Kanji characters of HITACHI which is identical to
the Mark in its entirety.
...D2000-1557, regarding ,
and respectively, which were all transferred to Hitachi because they
were found to be prima facie identical or confusingly similar to its MARK since the
dominant portion of each domain name comprised Hitachi's distinctive MARK in its
entirety, and the additional elements were all descriptive and generic that were found to
add nothing to the domain names as a whole.
...
2002-04-02 - Case Details
The Complainant
5.1.1 The Complainant contends that the domain name in issue is confusingly similar to the Complainant's LIBERTY mark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of that domain name and that it was registered and is being used in bad faith.
5.1.2 With regard to rights or legitimate interests, the Complainant points to the fact that the web page to which the domain name in issue resolves states that it is owned by Trainweb, Inc. ...The Panel considers that the word LIBERTY per se is not identical to any of the disputed domain names nor confusingly similar thereto. It is a common English word and there are over 40 entries in the London Business telephone book for companies or organisations having "Liberty" as the first word in their name."
...
2001-01-09 - Case Details
newsony.com" by the Respondent is identical and confusingly similar. I have no hesitation in accepting the total possibility of confusion in the minds of the website users/consumers. ...There is no doubt that the use of the domain name "newsony.com" is bound to cause confusion and anyone would relate it with the Complainant. It is, therefore, identical and confusingly similar with the trademark of the Complainant.
Legitimate interest:
The Respondent has not shown any use except that pornographic material has been put on the website. ...
2001-04-24 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
Complainant
Identical or confusingly similar
The disputed domain name is identical to the registered trademarks in which the Complainant has rights.
...Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s registered trademarks.
...
2003-03-25 - Case Details
The domain name is therefore confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trade marktrademarks.
No rights or legitimate interests
The Complaint rather baldly states that "To the best of Complainant’s knowledge, Respondent has no rights to any trademark consisting of the terms "WAL-MART" in any country."
...Decision
The Panel decides that:
(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade marktrademark 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 by the Respondent.
...
2002-10-25 - Case Details
Complainants contend that the Domain Names are identical with and confusingly similar to Complainants’ Marks pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).
B. Complainants contend that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Names pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii).
...Therefore, the Presiding Panelist finds that the Domain Names are identical with and confusingly similar to Complainants’ Marks pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).
Rights or Legitimate Interest
Respondent asserts that he registered the Original Domain Names prior to Complainants registration of Complainants’ Marks. ...
2000-04-28 - Case Details
Complainant
The domain name, registered by the Respondent, is identical with seven trademark registrations of the word STRALFORS held by the Complainant. The domain name is also confusingly similar with several trademark registrations of the word STRÅLFORS and the logotype STRALFORS and STRÅLFORS held by the Complainant in many European countries.
...In conclusion, all the above clearly shows that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademarks, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name and that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2000-04-17 - Case Details
Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is virtually identical and confusingly similar to its famous "BELL" mark, particularly in so far as Complainant has used its mark extensively in the fields of telecommunications services and goods.
...The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark within the meaning 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 confusingly similar to a trademark and service mark in which 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.
...
2001-01-25 - Case Details
Complainant’s Proof
(i) Domain Name Identical or Confusingly Similar to Trademark
Complainant Coltec has proven that it is the owner of trademark rights in the
mark STEMCO, going back at common law to 1952 and continuing through the date
of the Complaint, and including several federal registrations, which have become
incontestable pursuant to the provisions of 15 U.S.C. § 1065. ...Coltec has further proven that the Domain Name, , is identical
or confusingly similar to its trademark STEMCO. In making this comparison, it
is well established that the generic top-level domain, in this case ".net,"
must be excluded from consideration as being a generic or functional component
of the Domain Name. ...
2001-06-15 - Case Details
In order to be successful, the Complainant has the burden of proving, on the
balance of probabilities, that all three elements are present.
7.2Domain Name identical
or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trade mark
The domain names in dispute
are , and .
...Therefore, apart
from the gTLD suffixes forming part of the domain name, which do not have a
relevant distinguishing function in determining whether a domain name is identical
or confusingly similar to a trade mark or trade name, the difference between
the disputed domain names and the Complainant’s "RED BULL" trademarks
is the addition of the word "entertainment" in the domain names.
...
2001-07-11 - Case Details
The
Complaint states that the domain name in dispute which wholly appropriates Complainant’s
WIMSA mark is identical or at least very confusingly similar to Complainant’s
common law trademark.
Complainant submits that the disputed domain name
is also confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered trademarks which include
as their prime feature Women in Military Service in America. ...According to the Complaint, Complainant has reason to believe
that Respondent is in the business of registering recently expired domain names
for the sole purpose of diverting Internet users to its pornographic web sites
and to tarnish the former Registrant’s goodwill by using a confusingly similar
name to furnish pornography. The Complaint cites a number of situations which
could give credence to this assertion.
...
2001-07-23 - Case Details
Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is
confusingly similar to its trademark.
Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name
because Respondent registered the disputed domain name long after Complainant registered its trademark
with the USPTO and began using it. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The second element of a claim of abusive domain name registration and use is that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii)). ...
2024-09-09 - 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
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
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
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