The Respondent asserts that the Complainant has filed its Complaint in bad faith and has requested the Panel to declare that the Complainant has committed an attempt of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is established case law that the top level domain ".com" may be disregarded in assessing whether the a trademark is identical or confusingly similar to a domain name (Rohde & Schwarz GmbH & Co. ...The Complainant has put forward that the Respondent is not known under the disputed domain name, does not have a trademark which is identical or similar to the disputed domain name, the registration of the disputed domain name has not been authorized by the Complainant and that the disputed domain name is being used for a website with advertising links. ...
2014-11-04 - Case Details
Respondent
No formal response was received from Respondent.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant asserts that it is a well-known international manufacturer of premium chocolate and has a well-established global presence. ...There is obvious merit in this argument and the Panel finds:
a) Complainant has rights in respect of Complainant's Trademark.
b) The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's Trademark in so far as it contains the distinctive element LINDT accompanied by the descriptive term "candy".
...
2015-05-26 - Case Details
The disputed domain name unlawfully incorporates the Complainant’s trade mark and is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark.
The activities carried on by the Registrant at the website at the disputed domain name involve identical or confusingly similar goods and services to those in class 3 for which the Complainant’s mark is registered.
...In fact, the Complaint proceeds on the assumption that the company is the Complainant and the Panel does likewise.
B. Identical or Misleadingly Similar
The first condition in paragraph 1.1 of the IEDR Policy is that the disputed domain name is identical or misleadingly similar to a protected identifier in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2016-07-29 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the underlying registrant indicated by the Respondent Whoisprotection.cc, Domain Admin is not a Respondent under the Policy and that no purpose would be served in naming such individual in the Decision.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark STEVE MADDEN. The test for confusing similarity involves a comparison between the trademark and the domain names. ...The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2021-03-22 - Case Details
Substantive Issues
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a complainant must assert and prove each of the following:
(i) 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
(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) the domain name registered by the respondent has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the trademark registrations for the trademark COLUMBIA.
...
2021-12-08 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
According to Article 21(1) of Regulation (EC) No. 874/2004 (“the Regulation”) and in connection with Paragraph B(11)(d)(1) of the ADR Rules, the Panel shall issue a decision granting the remedy requested by the Complainant if the latter proves in the ADR proceeding that:
(i) The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by the national law of a Member State and/or Community law and; either
(ii) The Disputed Domain Name has been registered by the Respondent without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or
(iii) The Disputed Domain Name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.
...The Panel notes that the Regulation and ADR Rules list the issues under points (ii) and (iii) in the alternative, but nevertheless the Panel will examine both of these issues in order to reach its decision in the present ADR proceeding.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the LUXURY MAGAZINE trademark. The Panel agrees with the Respondent that this term is highly descriptive when used in relation to a magazine directed at luxury lifestyles. ...
2021-12-29 - Case Details
The Complainant further asserts that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly
similar (particularly domain names incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a widely-known
trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. ...https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 4
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant owns the registered trademark ZIONS BANK in the United States, and the disputed
domain name includes ZIONSBANK in its entirety. ...
2023-03-08 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Under the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove on the balance of probabilities 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 the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2023-12-28 - Case Details
The Panel has authority to decide the dispute examining the three elements
in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, taking into consideration all of the relevant evidence, annexed material and
allegations, and performing some limited independent research under the general powers of the Panel
articulated, inter alia, in paragraph 10 of the Rules.
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...
2023-12-28 - Case Details
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.
Although the addition of other terms such as “kronos” may bear on assessment of the second and third
elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity
between the disputed Domain Name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2024-06-12 - Case Details
The disputed domain name includes the Complainant’s INDIGO registered and unregistered mark and is therefore confusingly similar to it.
The Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in relation to the disputed domain name.
...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established rights in the mark INDIGO by virtue of its registered trade marks as well as unregistered trade mark rights deriving from its extensive use of that name.
...
2018-10-10 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings on the merits
The Policy requires the Complainant to prove three elements:
(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.
Based on the evidence and arguments submitted, the Panel’s findings are as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has provided sufficient evidence that it has valid rights in the mark BULGARI based on its registration and use of the same as trademarks in a large number of countries throughout the world.
...
2020-01-09 - Case Details
Such is the case according to Article 3(1) when the colliding sign is identical or confusingly similar to an earlier trademark and intended for identical or similar goods or services.
Such confusion is however not even necessary when the earlier trademark amounts to a well-known trademark in compliance with Article 15 of the Swiss Trademark Act. ...A simple visual test reveals that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark MIGROSBANK held by the Claimant. By registering a domain name which is identical to the Claimant's trademark but for the omission of the final “k”, the Respondent clearly tries to unfairly exploit the recognition and reputation of the Claimant's mark. ...
2008-11-10 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the Respondent is required:
“to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding in the event that a third party (a ‘complainant') asserts to the applicable Provider, in compliance with the Rules of Procedure, that:
(i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.”
...The Panel also has reviewed different sources and documentation to confirm the Complainant's arguments and allegations.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has submitted ample documentary evidence to the effect that it has registered and has rights in the trademark ACOMPLIA.
...
2008-12-10 - Case Details
Complainant’s registered trademark is, notwithstanding the figural element separating the two words TRYGG and HANSA, confusingly similar to the domain name "trygghansa.nu".
B. The Respondent has registered the domain name and used it with admitted intent to tarnish the trademark and negatively influence the business reputation of its owner. ...Summarizing its findings under A–C, the Administrative Panel finds that the domain name registered by the Respondent is confusingly similar to the trade mark in which the Complainant has rights, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name and that the Respondent’s domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
7. ...
2001-01-17 - Case Details
The Respondent submits that it is the Complainants who registered trademarks identical or confusingly similar to the domain name.
The Respondent states that searches through a search engine on the Internet shows plenty of leads to companies either controlled or associated with the Complainants. ...The Complainants will not be able to throw enough light on the evidence in this case, nor the case as a whole under this proceeding, see reasoning below.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It seems undisputed that the Complainants have satisfied the first requirement. The domain name is identical to the Complainants’ AQUASTEL trademarks. ...
2006-08-04 - 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 the trademark in which the Complainant has right; 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.
...Decision
In light of the foregoing, the Administrative Panel decides that the Domain Name "casino-monaco.com" registered by Respondent may be confusingly similar to the trademark of Complainant but that Respondent has not registered nor used the Domain Name in bad faith. ...
2000-12-19 - Case Details
The domain name was considered
to be nearly identical to the famous marks MARRIOTT and MARRIOTT REWARDS and
to be confusingly similar to other MARRIOTT marks and domain names. It was found
to have been registered and used in bad faith upon a finding of no rights or
legitimate interests on the part of the Respondent. ...The Centerfind
site also promotes links to sites for shopping, food and recipes, such goods
and services being similar to those offered by Williams-Sonoma at its web site.
The Respondent appears to have been engaged in similar behaviour in the past,
having thereby established a "prior history of registering domain names
consisting of misspelling of widely-known marks".
...
2001-06-07 - Case Details
The burden for the Complainant, under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, is to show:
- 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
- That the Respondent has no legitimate rights or interests in respect of the domain name; and
- That the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Decision
For the foregoing reasons, the Panel decides:
(a) That the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark to which the Complainant have rights; and
(b) That the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(c) That the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2002-04-08 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
The Complainant's contentions may be summarized as follows:
The Domain Names incorporate Complainant's principal trademark and a variant
of its trademarked logo and are therefore confusingly similar or identical to
its marks. Consumers locating Respondent's websites would tend to believe that
an affiliation existed between Complainant and Respondent in light of the Domain
Names themselves and in light of the logos and claims contained within the sites.
...These elements are as follows:
(i) Respondent's 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 to the Domain
Name; and
(iii) Respondent's Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad
faith.
...
2002-06-17 - Case Details