The domain name in dispute is confusingly similar to the trademarks because it reproduces letter by letter the BAYARD trademarks with the addition of the generic term "services" which does not make the disputed domain in issue distinctive. ...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel has considered the evidence set out above of the Complainant's trademark rights and its long history of trading using the marks BAYARD or BAYARD PRESSE. ...
2015-01-21 - Case Details
Under 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;
(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
It is well established that gTLDs may typically be disregarded in the assessment under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy (e.g., Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...
2015-01-15 - 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
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
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
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 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, 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
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
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
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name contains the entirety of the Complainant’s CIA trademark directly followed by the word “success”. ...Weighting all these circumstances here it is clear that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. The first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is accordingly proven.
...
2018-06-15 - 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 strictly speaking identical to the Complainant’s SKYSCANNER trademark, since the part before the generic extension includes a reiteration of that extension. ...Therefore the Panel holds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SKYSCANNER trademark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
There is nothing to indicate that the Respondent is known by the name “skyscanner” or does legitimate business by reference to that mark, or that mark combined with “-com”. ...
2018-10-31 - 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
For the reasons proffered by the Complainant the Panel determines that the present proceedings be conducted in English in accordance with paragraph 11(a) of the Rules.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has trademark rights in NEXTKEYS. Moreover the Complainant also contends that it has common law rights in “nextkeys” as a newly minted term.
...Therefore the Panel holds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark NEXTKEYS.
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is not licensed nor authorized to use the Complainant’s NEXTKEYS trademark in any way. ...
2020-05-08 - Case Details
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a complainant can only succeed in an administrative proceeding under the Policy if the following circumstances are met:
(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 the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Panel will further analyze the potential concurrence of the above circumstances.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant holds rights in the PHILIPP PLEIN trademark.
The disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s trademark PHILIPP PLEIN in its entirety and without any addition or alteration, only a hyphen separating the two words composing the mark.
...
2018-04-13 - 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 Complainant's IHOP trademark, for which it has obtained registration in the United States and a number of other countries. ...Therefore the Panel holds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's IHOP trademark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has not afforded the Respondent any rights in the disputed domain name or in the trademark IHOP. ...
2014-12-23 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
The factual foundation of the Complainant’s contentions, as presented by the Complainant, while supporting its non-contradicted request for transfer of the disputed domain name by written evidence and ample reference to earlier UDRP decisions, leads the Panel to the following conclusions:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant’s multi-registered and well-known trademark FIDELITY together with the word “recruitmentuk”. ...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered and well known trademark FIDELITY and those other Complainant’s FIDELITY trademarks with specifications that have been listed above under Section 4.
...
2013-03-27 - Case Details