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
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
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 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
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
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
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 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
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s
contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
As a starting point, the Panel notes that the Complainant uses the trademark AMBIEN in all of the disputed domain names; there is no disputing the fact that the Respondent is using the trademark of the Complainant in the domain names.
...Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the registered trademark of the Complainant.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The trademark AMBIEN belongs to the Complainant and is used and registered by it since 1993. ...
2005-10-24 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s
contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name, if not absolutely identical, is very similar to the Complainant registered trademark PEEK UND CLOPPENBURG. ...Consequently the panel finds that the domain name at issue is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant, nor does it have the permission, consent or license of the Complainant to register the domain name at issue.
...
2007-04-02 - 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 a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; 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.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Panels have long held that the addition of a gTLD suffix is irrelevant in an
examination of identicality. ...
2006-08-03 - Case Details
It
has therefore not contested the allegations of the Complaint and the Panel shall
decide on the basis of the Complainant’s submissions, and all inferences
that can reasonably be drawn therefrom (Rules, paragraph 14(b)).
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name consists of a combination of the Complainant’s well-known trademark with the descriptive term “store” (the gTLD “.com” cannot be taken into consideration when judging confusing similarity between the domain name and the Complainant’s trademark). ...In conclusion the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark TAMIFLU of the Complainant.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has not licensed or otherwise consented to the use of its trademark TAMIFLU to the Respondent. ...
2006-04-21 - Case Details
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed in this proceeding, the Complainant must prove (i) that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which it has rights; (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...This includes the acceptance of plausible evidence of the Complainant which has not been disputed.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has registered and unregistered rights in the mark 7DAYS. ...
2010-03-11 - Case Details
The Panel will proceed to evaluate Complainant's evidence, and his own examination of Respondent’s website, against the requirements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar.
Complainant has demonstrated rights in its PRICELINE and NAME YOUR OWN PRICE marks sufficient to invoke the Policy. One of the disputed domain names incorporates the PRICELINE mark as its dominant feature, and the other two are confusingly similar to the NAME YOUR OWN PRICE marks. A long string of unbroken precedent holds that when the marks at issue are incorporated as the dominant feature of a domain name, for Policy purposes confusion is not obviated by addition of an everyday descriptive word. ...
2010-08-19 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
In order for the disputed domain name to be transferred to the Complainant, the Complainant must have demonstrated, in accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, 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 Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has rights in the trademark ROCKSTAR GAMES. ...
2008-01-08 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant submits:
1. The Respondent has registered a domain name that is “clearly” identical to the trademark of the Complainant which could cause confusion in the minds of potential customers looking to find the Complainants website.
...The Complainant submits that the Respondent in using the domain name has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating confusion with the Complainant.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied from the Complainant’s evidence that it has unregistered trademark rights in the mark STAN JAMES. ...
2007-06-13 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
The burden for the Complainant under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is to prove:
(i) that the Domain Name registered by Respondent 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 Domain Name; and
(iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant alleges and the Respondent agrees that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s TELEROUTE mark.
...
2007-07-16 - 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
Complainant
The Complainant alleges that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s VALERO mark because it is comprised of the VALERO mark in its entirety, plus the addition of the generic word “card” and the generic Top-Level Domain extension “.com”.
...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the owner of a number of VALERO marks registered in the United States, including US Registration No. 1,314,004, US Registration No. 2,560,091, US Registration No. 2,656,971, and US Registration No. 3,108,715. ...
2015-05-07 - Case Details