Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith for the following reasons: (i) the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s rights in the common law trademark CYCLING NEWS when he registered the confusingly similar domain name ; (ii) the Respondent is using the confusingly similar domain name in association with the operation of a website which provides similar news and information content as the Complainant’s website, which is in direct competition with the Complainant; (iii) the Respondent is thereby preventing the trademark owner from obtaining and using the disputed domain name; and (iv) the Respondent is using a confusingly similar domain name in association with a website to trade on the goodwill and reputation of the Complainant, and to interfere with the Complainant’s business.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The critical question in this proceeding is whether the Complainant has rights in the common law trademark CYCLING NEWS sufficient to support its claims. ...
2011-02-14 - Case Details
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade
marks.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel finds that the second element is present.
...The Parties
A. Complainant
B. Respondent
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith...
2023-10-18 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel is of the view that the Disputed
Domain Names are confusingly similar to the ZENNI trademarks and the Complainants have satisfied
paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...The Panel is prepared to infer that the
Respondent knew or should have known that its registration of the Disputed Domain Names would be
confusingly similar to the ZENNI trademarks (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.2.). Accordingly, the Panel
finds that the Respondent registering the Disputed Domain Names, which are confusingly similar to the
ZENNI trademarks, which are well-known and registered earlier, is a clear indicator of bad faith.
...
2023-07-31 - Case Details
Complainant
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the
Complainant has rights (Policy, Paragraph 4(a)(i); Rules, Paragraphs 3(b)(viii), (b)(ix)(1)).
...“It is also
well established that the specific top level of a domain name such as ‘.com’, ‘.org’ or ‘.net’ does not affect the
domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar.”)
Consequently, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademark ARCELORMITTAL.
...
2023-08-14 - Case Details
They contend that this should be done because, within the meaning of paragraph 4 of the Policy, the “Bally domain names” are confusingly similar to the First Complainant's registered BALLY'S service marks, the “Caesars domain names” are confusingly similar to the Second Complainant's registered CAESARS PALACE and CAESARS service marks, the “Harrahs domain names” are confusingly similar to the First Complainant's registered HARRAH'S service marks, the “Paris domain names” are confusingly similar to the First Complainant's registered PARIS service marks, the “Rio domain name” is confusingly similar to the First Complainant's registered RIO service mark and the “Showboat domain names” are confusingly similar to the First Complainant's registered SHOWBOAT service marks.
...The Panel will therefore deal with each of these requirements in turn.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the “Bally domain names” are confusingly similar to the First Complainant's registered BALLY'S service marks. ...
2008-12-03 - Case Details
The passive holding of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a well known trademark constitutes registration and use of the domain name in bad faith.
...The Panel considers each element in order.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
With regard to whether the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to trademarks in which Complainant has rights, Complainant clearly possesses legal rights in the trademarks COCA-COLA, COKE, COCA-COLA BLAK, and COKE BLAK. ...
2008-01-11 - Case Details
On the basis of the evidence submitted by the Complainant and, in particular, with regards to the content of
the relevant provisions of the Policy (paragraph 4(a), (b), and (c)), the Panel concludes as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under the first element of paragraph 4 (a) of the Policy, the Complainant must establish that the disputed
domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has
rights.
...Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-10-09 - Case Details
The onus of proving these elements is on the Complainant.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element the Complainant must have trade or service mark rights, and the disputed domain names must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade or service mark.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. Consequently, the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2008-05-26 - Case Details
page 4
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), the Complainant shall prove that the Disputed Domain Name is
identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-10-03 - Case Details
The Respondent is offering alternative products
under a confusingly similar trademark. The Respondent is using different elements from the Complainants’
brand assets and materials despite being requested to cease unauthorized use. ...The Respondent is alleged to have registered and used a domain name that is confusingly
similar to the MARGRA trademark. This strikes at the commercial interests of both of the Complainants.
...
2023-04-12 - Case Details
FA 1142567 (finding confusingly similar to Complainant’s YAHOO! mark); YAHOO! Inc. et al., v. Alex Vorot et al., NAF Claim No. FA 159547 (finding the and , among others, confusingly similar to Complainant’s YAHOO! mark); and YAHOO! Inc. et al. v. Chan, NAF Claim No. FA 162050 (finding and , among others, confusingly similar to the Complainant’s YAHOO! ...
2011-11-28 - Case Details
Summary of Complainant’s Legal Contentions
1. The Domain Names Are Confusingly Similar to THE DESERT SUN™ Mark
a. The Domain Names are confusingly similar to THE DESERT SUN™ mark.
...Identical or Confusingly Similar
The threshold issue in relation to the issue of whether the accused domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's mark, is a determination of whether Complainant has protectable rights in the mark "THE DESERT SUN". ...
2003-01-21 - Case Details
Walsucks and Walmarket Puerto Rico identified that the confusingly similar test may be held to a different standard when used with Internet search engines. See Wal-mart Stores, Inc. v. ...The Panel concludes that the Respondent's domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's marks."
A similar approach had been taken by the adminisrative panelist in EAuto, L.L.C. v. ...
2000-10-27 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
(i) Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant states that the Domain Names are identical and/or highly similar to the TRAVELEX Marks in which Complainant has extensive rights. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that that the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights, in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2018-12-17 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the marks for which Complainant owns a multitude of trademark registrations in the U.S., China and in a number of other countries. ...Respondent is also using the term “moins”, which is confusingly similar to Complainant's MOEN mark, in connection with the sale of its kitchen fixtures and other products. ...
2009-02-23 - Case Details
These elements are discussed in turn below.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove both that it has rights in a mark, and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that mark.
...The question is whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to one or more of the Complainant’s marks. The Complainant vaguely alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its marks because “a number” of them contain references to the Gold Coast. ...
2013-11-26 - Case Details
As a general matter, a domain name is likely to be deemed to be confusingly similar to a mark if it incorporates the mark or a variation or dominant portion of the mark; however, such a finding is not automatic. ...The Panel therefore finds that the Domain Name is not identical to or confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has been shown to have rights under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2013-07-02 - Case Details
Complainants contend that the Domain Names are identical with and confusingly similar to the trademark pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).
Complainants argue that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the LOMA LINDA Mark, pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, because they wholly incorporate the common law LOMA LINDA Mark with the addition of generic terms “.org” and “.net”.
Respondent does not contest that the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the purported trademark.
As numerous courts and prior UDRP panels have recognized, the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety is generally sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant's registered mark. ...
2009-03-23 - Case Details
Even in cases where the respondent is in default, to justify the transfer of the disputed domain name the complainant must establish each of the three elements required by paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To satisfy the first UDRP element, the disputed domain name must be identical or confusingly similar to a trademark, in which the Complainant has rights. ...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the MOMONDO trademark in which the Complainant has rights, and that the Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in relation to the disputed domain name.
...
2015-05-19 - Case Details
Sell, supply, offer or expose for sale or supply or advertise the provision of motor vehicle tyres and tyre fitting services under or by reference to National Tyres or any other mark confusingly similar.
b. Otherwise pass off or enable, assist or procure others to pass off our business as and for your business by reference to the mark National Tyres or any other mark confusingly similar.
2. ...Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the marks NATIONAL TYRES AND AUTOCARE, NATIONAL, NATIONAL TYRE SERVICE and NATIONAL TYRES in which it has rights.
...
2014-11-12 - Case Details