It is contended that the disputed domain name effectively reproduces the Complainant's trademark CITY CENTRE ME'AISEM in its entirety and is confusingly similar to it. The Complainant has also produced copies of documents referencing the expression "City Centre Me'aisem", including a purchase order for related advertising artwork dated July 2, 2014, and press reports.
...The dispute is properly within the scope of the Policy and the Panel has jurisdiction to decide the dispute.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has produced evidence satisfactory to the Panel of its rights in the registered trademark and design CITY CENTRE ME'AISEM under UAE law. ...
2015-08-24 - Case Details
Complainants have a common grievance against Respondent since the disputed domain name contains two trademarks, one owned by Dow and the other by DuPont; thus Respondent has engaged in a conduct that has affected Complainants’ individual rights in a similar fashion.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to either the DOW and/or the DUPONT trademarks. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is undisputed that Dow has rights in the DOW trademark and that DuPont has rights in the DUPONT trademark.
...
2016-05-24 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which it has rights; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element under the Policy functions primarily as a standing requirement, the intent being to assess whether the Complainant has a bona fide basis for the Complaint (The Perfect Potion v. ...
2020-06-04 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established rights in the mark FRISBY by virtue of its registered trade marks .
...For the above reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2020-05-25 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant claims that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its earlier trademarks, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the owner of numerous CARREFOUR formative and word trademarks, including trademark registrations for CARREFOUR PASS, as well as domain names formed with CARREFOUR, all registered and used in relation with retail services.
...
2021-12-27 - Case Details
The Panel has, however, reviewed the Response and considered it in the discussion below.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has provided evidence establishing that it has trademark rights in the TEVA mark through registration in the United Arab Emirates, thereby satisfying the threshold requirement of having trademark rights for purposes of standing to file a case under paragraph 6(a)(i) of the Policy.
In comparing Complainant’s TEVA mark with the disputed domain name, , the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with Complainant’s mark. The disputed domain name contains Complainant’s TEVA mark in its entirety. ...
2021-01-04 - Case Details
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has provided evidence establishing that it has trademark rights in the CME and CME GROUP marks through registrations in numerous jurisdictions including in Malaysia, which is referenced in both disputed domain names. ...In comparing Complainant’s CME and CME GROUP marks with the disputed domain names, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar with Complainant’s marks. Both disputed domain names contain Complainant’s marks in their entirety. ...
2021-02-09 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant contends that it is the owner of the ALLY and ALLY BANK marks. The applicable Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) in the disputed domain name is a standard registration requirement and is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. ...Registered and used in bad faith
The Complainant asserts that by registering a domain name entirely comprised of the Complainant’s ALLY BANK mark and confusingly similar to its and domain names, the Respondent has demonstrated a knowledge of and familiarity with the Complainant’s brand. ...
2020-10-08 - Case Details
Those elements are:
(i) that the disputed domain names are 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 names; and
(iii) that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it has registered trademark rights in the marks EMSCULPT and EMSCULPT NEO. ...
2021-07-13 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy sets forth the following three requirements, which have to be met for this Panel
to order 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 disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademark. The first element of the Policy has been established.
...
2022-03-18 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of 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; 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.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant relies on common law rights to the Complainant’s marks, to which it has a pending trademark
applications for both the KHADI PRAKRITIK PAINT word mark and PRAKRITIK PAINT device marks. ...
2022-06-08 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends as follows:
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant is the owner of European Union Registered Trademark No. 6827927 for the word mark GOMMADIRETTO in respect of various goods and services including in Class 12, “automobile tires; bicycle tires; tires, solid, for vehicle wheels; tires for vehicle wheels; inner tubes for tires; tubeless tires for bicycles, cycles”. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There are two parts to the inquiry under this element of the Policy. First, the Complainant must demonstrate that it has UDRP-relevant rights in a trademark. ...
2022-03-08 - Case Details
The disputed domain names are, according to the Complainant, confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademark, creating a likelihood of confusion given the reproduction of its trademark which is clearly
recognizable as the leading element of the disputed domain names, with the addition of the descriptive term
“tenders” (in all disputed domain names) as well as the addition of the geographical abbreviation “qa” for
Qatar in two cases and the addition of a hyphen in one of the disputed domain names.
...B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established its rights in the QATARENERGY trademark.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names reproduce the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety. ...
2022-11-24 - 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;
(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.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-10-04 - Case Details
This Panel is satisfied, in view of the evidence submitted and on balance that the disputed domain names
are indeed subject to a common control and that consolidation would be fair and equitable to all Parties.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established rights over the TOTAL and TOTAL ENERGIES trademarks duly
registered.
...For the reasons above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s trademark.
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a non-exclusive list of circumstances that may indicate the
Respondents’ rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. ...
2023-01-11 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to divest a respondent of a domain name, a complainant
must demonstrate each of the following: (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. ...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks
and concludes that the Complainant has established the first element of the Complaint.
...
2023-02-08 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that Complainant holds rights in the trademark TEMU through registration and use
demonstrated in the record. The Panel finds further that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to that
mark. The Domain Name entirely incorporates the mark TEMU and adds the term “app.” ...
2024-04-23 - Case Details
a. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the trademark NERDWALLET through registration and
use demonstrated in the record. The Panel also concludes that the disputed domain names are confusingly
similar to that mark. Each of them fully incorporates the NERDWALLET mark, and the additional word
“mortgage” (pluralized once) and, in most cases, the addition of a number, do not overcome the fact that the
mark NERDWALLET is clearly recognizable within each of the disputed domain names.
...
2024-01-19 - Case Details
Complainant
(a) Under a holistic aural or phonetic comparison of the Complainant’s Trademark and the Disputed
Domain Name, the Complainant submits that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s Trademark, on the basis of “go-mio” being the phonetic translation of GAULT MILLAU
in any language, the substantive and visual content of the Respondent’s Website, and the
Respondent’s representation that it is a Gault Millau licensee.
...The Respondent made no submissions on the
Complainant’s contention that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
Trademark.
(b) The Respondent contends that it has full rights and legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed
Domain Name by virtue of it being licensed by GAULTMILLAU SA (“Purported Licensor”) to operate
the Gault Millau brand from 2017 (“Purported License”). ...
2023-10-24 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated that it has trademark rights through the multiple trademark registrations
for the mark PRIMARK.
...As set forth in section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0: “in cases where a domain name incorporates the
entirety of a trademark […] the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark.”
(See, e.g., Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903 (“the fact that a domain name
wholly incorporates a complainant’s registered mark is sufficient to establish identity or confusing similarity
for purposes of the Policy”)).
...
2023-10-23 - Case Details