Complainant
Complainant asserts that it has rights in the trademark “ARAI” (and related ARAI-formative marks) and that the disputed domain name is identical and confusingly similar to its mark. Complainant asserts that its trademark is well known in the field of safety helmets.
...Each of the aforesaid three elements must be proved by a complainant to warrant relief.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has submitted evidence of registration of the trademark “ARAI” on the Principal Register of the USPTO. ...
2005-02-10 - Case Details
The contention of the Complainant that the name is identical or confusingly similar is not at all a relevant issue inasmuch all national dailies carry the same service/trade mark in advertisements from property dealers advertising properties for sale/rent in this area.
...dlf-city.com" by the Respondent is identical and confusingly similar to the trade/service name of the Complainant.
Legitimate interest:
The trade/service name DLF and DLF-City clearly belongs to the Complainant. ...
2000-12-12 - Case Details
Paragraph 4a of the Policy directs that Complainant must prove each of the following:
- that the domain names registered by Respondent are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or a service mark in which Complainant has rights
- that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names, and
- that the domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
...Identity or Confusing Similarity
Complainant has, according to Paragraph 4a(i) of the Policy, to prove that the domain names at issue are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or a service mark in which Complainant has rights.
The domain names at issue are , and .
...
2002-01-24 - Case Details
vii) Complainant has failed to discharge the burden of showing that Respondent
has no legitimate right or interest, or that he has registered and is using
the domain name in bad faith.
7. Discussion and Findings
Identical or Confusingly Similar Trademark
7.1 Complainant has demonstrated substantial trademark use of "Miles&More"
both alone and in conjunction with "Lufthansa" and other indicia. ...However, for the purpose of this decision, the Panel
proceeds on the basis that such rights existed at the date of registration of
the domain name in October 1998 and that the domain name is confusingly similar
to the trademarks.
Rights and Legitimate Interests
7.2 As clearly set out in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the onus is on the
complainant to establish each of the required elements of that paragraph. ...
2002-04-05 - Case Details
Advanced Chemill Systems,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0827.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has furnished prima facie evidence that it is the owner of a number of trade marks and pending trade mark applications in respect of LANE 4 as set out above, and accordingly has rights in the same.
This Panel finds that each of the Disputed Domain Names is confusingly similar
to the Complainant’s LANE 4 trade marks. Each Disputed Domain Name incorporates
the Complainant’s mark in full. ...
2004-08-26 - Case Details
The domain name is identical, and therefore confusingly similar, to Complainant’s respective BANCO DO BRASIL mark. In addition, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has registered the domain name in bad faith. ...Decision
For all the above reasons the Panel has found that the domain name is identical, or at least confusingly similar, to the marks of the Complainant, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to the domain name, and that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2000-09-04 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that (1) the domain name "PLANETHEINEKEN.com" is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark, in which the Complainant has rights; (2) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; (3) the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Comparable cases, where in absence of any substantive response of the Respondent the Panel, based on the circumstances of the case, has concluded that the (not identical but) confusingly similar domain name was registered and used in bad faith are e.g.Guerlain S.A. v. HI Investments (case No. ...
2001-02-06 - Case Details
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following:
(i) 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,
(ii) that the Respondent has no legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and,
(iii) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Application of Paragraph 4(a) to the Facts
I. Identical or Confusingly Similar to Trademark or Service Mark.
Complainant is required under Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy to prove that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights. ...
2002-09-23 - Case Details
The Panel did not find any circumstances sufficiently exceptional to request Supplemental Filings and declined to receive them.
Whether the Domain Name is Identical or Confusingly Similar to a Trademark
6.4.The Domain Name subject to this Complaint is . The inclusion of <.biz> or equivalent in a Domain Name is inevitable and of no consequence for the determination of identity or confusing similarity. ...Decision
The Decision of the Administrative Panel is that the disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark PEPSI in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed Domain Name; and that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed Domain Name in bad faith. ...
2002-08-06 - Case Details
As to the reverse domain name hijacking, the Respondent notes that the Complainants changed their trading name in November 2001, some 17 months after Richard Lambert registered the domains.
5. Discussion and Findings
A. Domain Names Confusingly Similar to the Trademarks
There is no doubt that and are confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainants. ...Decision
In the light of the foregoing, the Panel decides that the domain names at issue are confusingly similar to Complainants’ trademarks, that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain names, and further, that the Respondent appears to have acted in bad faith in registering and using the disputed domain names. ...
2002-08-06 - Case Details
- With respect to the elements described in paragraph 4(a)(i), the Complainant
makes no specific submissions with respect to the question of whether the domain
name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which it has rights,
assuming, perhaps, that this is unnecessary because of the identity between
the two. ...As a number of previous Panels have noted, the purpose of the UDRP
is to prevent the bad faith registration of domain names that are identical
or confusingly similar to trade marks. This is a limited purpose that does not
presently cover the protection of geographical names, however desirable this
may be: see further WIPO Case No. ...
2002-05-06 - Case Details
The Respondent contends that the fact that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to AVOLUTION "cannot be grounds for the Complaint."
The Respondent points out that currently the Domain Name connects to a site hosted by Netfirms. ...Reverse Domain Name Hijacking is defined in paragraph 1 of the Rules as meaning "using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain name holder of a domain name."
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name, absent the generic domain suffix, is very similar to the Complainant’s claimed service mark AVOLUTION. ...
2004-04-16 - Case Details
As such submits the Complainant, the mark and the disputed domain names are virtually identical, which renders them confusingly similar.
In addition, says the Complainant, each of the disputed domain names wholly incorporates one of the Complainant’s registered trade marks adding only the generic words “club”, “online”, “casino” and “zal” (word “zal” is a transliteration of Russian word “зал” and it means “hall”) and mixing some of them with Arabic numerals, that are considered irrelevant under the Policy and that do not affect the confusing similarity of domain names and trade marks. ...As a consequence the Panel finds that each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to one or other of the Complainant’s registered trade marks as set out above.
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
It is apparent that the Complainant has made a very substantial use of its Vulcan marks both in the Russian Federation and in neighboring countries and in certain countries in Europe as a result of operating in the Russian Federation and in certain European countries with more than 230 Вулкан and/or Vulkan branded gaming clubs and more than 6,300 gaming machines deployed throughout Europe.
...
2016-12-27 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant made the following submissions in the Amended Complaint:
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is a well-known company in Portugal. The Complainant was founded in 1972 in Espinho, Portugal. ...In the NameJet auction, the Respondent competed against 21 other parties and ultimately winning the bidding after 52 bids.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Respondent accepts that the Complainant holds valid trademarks.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The disputed domain name is comprised of descriptive terms.
...
2021-06-02 - Case Details
The burden for Complainant, under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, is to show:2 (i) that each disputed domain name 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 disputed domain names; and (iii) each disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is undisputed that Complainant has rights over the EXCELLENCE GROUP LUXURY RESORTS trademark.
...
2013-03-05 - Case Details
Gilson, et al, Trademark Protection and Practice (© 1996, Matthew Bender & Co., Inc.) states:
"When one trademark is said to be 'confusingly similar to another', it is so similar to the other that, when it is used on products the purchasing public is likely to be confused. The term [confusingly similar] is simply another way to express the fact that confusion is likely. "
In assessing whether sufficient similarity exists between two marks, Gilson, at § 5.02[1], states: "If a word trademark sounds similar to the plaintiff's mark courts often find likelihood of confusion, especially if the associated product is typically ordered orally. ...
2000-11-21 - Case Details
On November 17, 1999, Respondent registered the domain name KZZO.COM, which is confusingly similar to the mark KZZO. The addition of the generic top-level domain (gTLD) name ‘.com’ is without legal significance. ...Respondent has argued that because he intends to use the disputed domain name for an Internet-based business involving the retail sale of sports apparel, the name should not be considered confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark (that is primarily used to identify Complainant’s radio broadcast services). ...
2000-11-03 - 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
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
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