About Intellectual Property IP Training Respect for IP IP Outreach IP for... IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making IP Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization WIPO and Artificial Intelligence Working at WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets Future of IP WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars IP Enforcement WIPO ALERT Raising Awareness World IP Day WIPO Magazine Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Women Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Youth Examiners Innovation Ecosystems Economics Finance Intangible Assets Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism Music Fashion PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center World Intangible Investment Highlights WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Webcast WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Tailored Initiatives & Projects Collaborative Forums & Dialogues Innovation, Creativity and Development Acceleration Program IP for Impact National IP Strategies Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program IP Commercialization WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Global Forum on IP and AI AI Infrastructure Interchange AI Tools & Services Staff Positions Affiliated Personnel Positions Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

Full Text Search on WIPO Panel Decisions

Found 60700   document(s)s (0.033 sec)

Rows

<<  <  2621 - 2640  >  >>

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2016-0913 for daviviendatributario.com html (11 KB)

Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Identical or Confusingly Similar The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. The Disputed Domain Name adds the Spanish word “tributario” to the Trade Mark, which in English means tax, and is commonly used in relation to financial services. ...However, the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent’s default. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. ...

2016-07-14 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2018-0075 for theleague-app.com html (12 KB)

Substantive Analysis A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established that it has registered rights to the Trade Mark. ...The Domain Name is also used in bad faith. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark used in connection with identical services. There is a likelihood that consumers may be confused that it is linked to the Complainant. ...

2018-03-14 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2017-0144 for centurylinl.com, cetnurylink.com, cneturylink.com, wcenturylink.com html (12 KB)

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered CENTURYLINK trademark. The disputed domains either incorporate the CENTURYLINK trademark in its entirety, or differ by only one or two letters. ...The Panel further finds that the domain names , , and are confusingly similar with the Complainant’s registered CENTURYLINK trademarks. The disputed domain names contain minor changes compared to the Complainant’s trademark. ...

2017-03-23 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2017-0565 for seekprofiles.com html (11 KB)

The third element a complainant must establish is that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...On these grounds the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks and hence the first element of the Policy has been fulfilled. ...

2017-05-16 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2017-0316 for valerro.com html (11 KB)

Parties' Contentions A. Complainant Identical or confusingly similar The Complainants submit that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainants' VALERO trademarks. ...The Panel accordingly finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the First Complainant's trademark VALERO, and that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied. ...

2017-05-15 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2019-0034 for orsam-os.com html (11 KB)

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark OSRAM. The intentional misspelling between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. ...Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark for purposes of the Policy “when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...

2019-03-11 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2019-1506 for notification-creditmutuel.com html (12 KB)

Complainant The Complainant makes the following contentions. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant first argues that the disputed domain name is highly confusingly similar to its trademark CREDIT MUTUEL in the extent that the disputed domain name reproduces the trademark in its entirety. ...The onus of proving these elements is on the Complainant. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...

2019-08-28 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2019-1142 for virginattlanticairwaystravel.com html (12 KB)

That is shown by the fact that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark and is linked to a website that features unauthorized copies of content from Complainant’s copyrighted website. ...There is no reason to debate whether the disputed domain name, , is confusingly similar to Complainant’s VIRGIN ATLANTIC mark, which is used in connection with airways travel. ...

2019-07-25 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2019-1913 for milipolqa.com html (12 KB)

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the Complainant does have registered trademark rights in MILIPOL and MP MILIPOL by virtue of the trademark registrations listed in paragraph 4 above. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, as the disputed domain name replicates the Complainant’s MILIPOL trademark, except for the addition of the geographical abbreviation QA (for Qatar). ...

2019-09-24 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2005-0361 for skunkworkstractor.com html (13 KB)

Respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s SKUNK WORKS mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. 3. ...Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because the disputed domain name fully incorporates Complainant’s mark and merely adds the generic word “tractor”. ...

2005-05-26 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2006-1225 for bank53.com html (16 KB)

Identical or Confusingly Similar Two separate issues fall for consideration. (1) does the Complainant have rights in the mark and (2) is the domain name identical or confusingly similar to any such mark. ...D2005-1360. The disputed domain name is identical and confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks. The Panel finds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied. ...

2006-12-14 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2011-1227 for valerocreditcards.com html (11 KB)

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has demonstrated that it owns rights in the VALERO trademark. There are many UDRP decisions that find that the pairing of a distinctive trademark with less distinctive terms is confusingly similar to the distinctive trademark. ...D2001-0032 ( and confusingly similar to LEXUS). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name, which pairs the VALERO trademark with the generic term “credit cards,” which is a service that the Complainant provides, is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s VALERO trademark. ...

2011-09-20 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2005-0970 for boscolotour.com html (12 KB)

Complainant The Complainant’s submissions can be summarized as follows: The disputed domain name is almost identical or confusingly similar to the trademark and service mark BOSCOLOTOURS, to which the Complainant has exclusive rights based on the corresponding trademark registration. ...This case is a so-called “typosquatting” case which arises where the domain name is a slight alphabetical variation from a registered mark and which may be qualified as confusingly similar. In these circumstances, this Panel takes into account previous UDRP decisions relating to this practice of “typosquatting” e.g. ...

2005-11-25 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2006-0005 for valium-net.com html (12 KB)

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar (Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy) 6.4 This Panel believes that Complainant’s mark VALIUM is a famous mark, known throughout the world and worthy of the highest degree of protection. ...Further, it is well established that incorporating the entirety of a mark into a domain name is sufficient to establish that a domain name is confusingly similar to the registered mark, see E Auto, L.L.C. v. Triple S Auto Parts d/b/a Kung Fu Yea Enterprises, Inc., WIPO Case No. ...

2006-03-27 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2006-0573 for edmumds.com html (13 KB)

D2001-0592 (Lack of response could be enough to find for Complainant). A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the Domain Name at issue is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights. ...This close misspelling renders the Domain Name confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark. Alta Vista Co. v. Yomtobian, WIPO Case No. D2000-0937 (domain names and are confusingly similar to trademark ALTA VISTA). ...

2006-07-18 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2006-0659 for tabassco.com html (12 KB)

Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.   6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant relies on its registration and use of “TABASCO” and asserts that the subject domain name is identical or confusingly similar to it. Whether a domain name is identical to a mark or is confusingly similar to a mark involves different criteria. It is clear that the Complainant has rights to “TABASCO” through registration and use. ...

2006-08-18 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2006-0473 for 7cialis.com html (12 KB)

It is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CIALIS trademark. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has rights in the trademark CIALIS by virtue of its registration in the USA and elsewhere. ...

2006-06-05 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2006-0380 for cialisonlineshop.com html (12 KB)

It is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CIALIS trademark. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has rights in the trademark CIALIS by virtue of its registration in the USA and elsewhere. ...

2006-05-25 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2006-0303 for plavixs.com html (12 KB)

Complainant The Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to the PLAVIX trademark. The Respondent’s domain name consists of the Complainant’s trademark with the addition of the letter “s” and the gTLD “.com. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar In order for the Complainant to successfully argue that the domain name should be transferred to the Complainant, the domain name must be identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...

2006-05-19 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2008-1783 for atlascaspian.bz, atlascaspian.info, atlascaspian.name, atlascaspian.ws html (11 KB)

The onus of proving these elements is on the complainant. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar To prove this element, the Complainant must have rights in a trademark or service mark, and the disputed domain name must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark or service mark. ...The Panel therefore finds that, in the circumstances of this case, the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's ATLAS trademarks. Consequently, the Panel finds that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied. ...

2009-02-20 - Case Details