confusingly similar to Complainant’s SWAROVSKI mark, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the disputed...identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or a service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests...
2014-11-28 - Case Details
the Policy, the Complainant must prove the following: (i) the Disputed Domain is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in...with respect to each requirement. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has provided sufficient evidence that the Disputed Domain Names are...
2012-09-26 - Case Details
“pharmacy” as a generic term fails to distinguish the disputed domain name from the trademark. Consequently, the two domain names are confusingly similar to...the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which it has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or...
2006-03-17 - Case Details
is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. Specifically, the Complainant asserts (in pertinent part): (1) The domain name exactly...Complainant has rights in a trade or service mark, with which the Respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar (Paragraph 4(a)(i)); and 2. The...
2008-02-18 - Case Details
following contentions: The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the OFFICETEAM trademark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety...Discussion and Findings In order to prevail, Complainant must prove: (i) The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark; (ii...
2006-08-30 - Case Details
Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SNCF trademarks, including...domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. (b) Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant contends that the Respondent cannot...
2011-10-21 - Case Details
Complainant contends as follows: I. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark ARCELORMITTAL ® and its domain names...following element as per Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy: (i) that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which...
2023-03-01 - Case Details
Identical or Confusingly Similar Complainant submits that Respondent’s Domain Name is confusingly similar to its QUICK HIT trademarks. First, the Domain Name...domain name, the marks are considered confusingly similar. Here, the Complainant states that its QUICK HIT marks are nearly identical to the Domain Name...
2015-08-26 - Case Details
’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its own NATWEST trademark. In furtherance of this...contention the Complainant argues 4 points: a) the disputed domain name is comprised of the dominant “Ntwest” element which is confusingly similar with its...
2013-01-04 - Case Details
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...Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s trademark, with the insertion of the letter “u” between the letters “car” and “van...
2021-04-13 - Case Details
’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s COOL HAND and COOL HAND POKER trademarks...the Policy have been satisfied: (i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has...
2011-11-21 - Case Details
Complainant Complainant contents that: (i) the disputed domain name is, if not identical, at least confusingly similar to the trademarks and domain names in...disputed 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...
2012-06-26 - Case Details
are satisfied. The burden of proof is on Complainant. (i) The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which...and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar To satisfy this element, the Panel must find that (1) Complainant has demonstrated...
2018-10-11 - Case Details
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark BHP BILLITON. The disputed domain name contains a misspelling of this trade mark, namely “bhpblliiton”. This...assessment that a domain name is confusingly similar to a particular trade mark. Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent does not have any...
2019-01-07 - Case Details
confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark. The Respondent is using the Domain Names to offer goods or services which compete with those of the...must satisfy the Panel that: (1) The Domain Names are identical with or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has...
2011-04-28 - Case Details
trade mark rights in the four marks relied upon and that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to those marks respectively; ii...Identical or Confusingly Similar Based upon the Complainant’s evidence set out in section 4 above, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant owns registered...
2020-06-30 - Case Details
’ Contentions A. Complainant The following are the Complainant’s contentions: - the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark...Disputed Domain Name; and (iii) The Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar This element...
2021-06-25 - Case Details
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s device mark. However, the decision of the Swedish Patent and Trademark Office of August 17, 2006, specifically held...that the Respondent’s mark was not confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ACCENTURE word mark. The Complainant also asked the Respondent in February...
2008-06-20 - Case Details
website. The Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ROSS-SIMONS registered mark. The only difference between the Complainant’s registered...confusingly similar variation of that mark. The Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Names was done in bad faith primarily for the purpose of...
2004-10-08 - Case Details
Complainant Complainant contends, in relevant part, as follows: The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the TURBOTAX Trademark because “Respondent is...names confusingly similar to the relevant mark”. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name because, inter...
2020-08-21 - Case Details