Complainant
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its MICHELIN trademark, containing its MICHELIN trademark in its entirety, followed by the generic words “my”, “leave”, “pro”, and “service”.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided evidence of its rights in the MICHELIN trademark though trademark registrations in various jurisdictions. ...
2021-10-11 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which it has rights because: (i) it completely incorporates the Complainant’s MHEDUCATION trademark, with the only difference being the addition of the word “connect”, which is another of the Complainant’s trademarks, and the non-substantive addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”; and (ii) these slight differences cannot prevent a finding of confusing similarity.
...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Once the gTLD “.com” is ignored (which is appropriate in this case), the disputed domain name consists solely of the Complainant’s registered word trademark MHEDUCATION and the textual component of the Complainant’s registered stylized trademark CONNECT. ...
2021-07-30 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to trademarks or service marks in which the Complainant has rights, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...The Panel shall now proceed to the analysis of the evidence in this case, based on the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has presented evidence to demonstrate that it owns registered trademark rights for NIPRO.
...
2021-11-04 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated that it owns registered trade mark rights for its AMUNDI mark under International trade mark registration 1024160 registered on September 24, 2009, designating in particular the United States. The disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s registered trade mark and is therefore confusingly similar to it. The fact that the disputed domain name also contains the abbreviation “ee”, a hyphen, and the ccTLD “.co”, does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. ...
2021-07-23 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the names and trademarks in which the Complainant has rights and that the addition of the descriptive word “resort” does not make the disputed domain name distinctive. ...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Clearly the Respondent was not authorized to register or use the disputed domain name nor was it commonly known by it.
...
2011-03-10 - Case Details
However, in order to prevail, Complainant must prove each of the three elements required by Policy paragraph 4(a).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In order to prevail on this element, Complainant must show that it has trademark rights that predate the registration of the domain name, and that the domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
...Further, the Panel finds that the deletion of one letter in the trademark as a domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
UDRP, paragraph 4(c) provides three circumstances, among others, that may constitute evidence of legitimate interests in a domain name:
“(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.”
...
2011-04-13 - 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, indeed, confusingly similar to the BRADESCO and BRADESCOMPLETO trademarks.
...Given the above, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the registered trademarks of the Complainant.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Given the clear evidence that the trademarks BRADESCO and BRADESCOMPLETO are registered in the Complainant’s name and are widely known as identifying the Complainant’s services, and that the Complainant has no licensed its marks to Respondent, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established prima facie that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...
2011-01-18 - Case Details
Under paragraph 4.a of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following:
(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark or service mark; 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 fact that the Respondent has engaged in the past in a pattern of registering domain names identical or confusingly similar to other trademarks of the Complainant’s (see annex 4 to the Complaint), further corroborates the above conclusions.
...
2011-01-13 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant submits that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its RIGZONE.COM registered trademark and differs overall only by the omission of the letter “m” from the domain root “.co”.
...On overall comparison the Disputed Domain Name, even including the “.co” domain root differs from the Complainant’s trade mark by only one letter and is at the least confusingly similar to it.
Accordingly, the Complaint succeeds in relation to the first element of the Policy.
...
2011-01-06 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the mark IEEE through longstanding use and registration. ...Taken as a whole, the Panel concludes that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s IEEE mark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy paragraph 4(a)(i) is satisfied.
...
2011-12-20 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant clearly has rights in the mark JIMMY CHOO through registration and extensive use. Complainant also holds rights in the more recent mark CHOO 24:7. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to both of these marks. The addition of “247” to the mark JIMMY CHOO in the Domain Name does not diminish the confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the mark. ...
2011-11-21 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to be entitled to a transfer of a domain name, a complainant must prove the following three elements:
(1) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(2) the respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated that it owns rights in the trademark GOT MILK?. The second level of the Domain Name is identical to the trademark except for the question mark, which is a symbol that cannot be included in a domain name. ...
2012-01-04 - Case Details
The Complainant asserts that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its VALIUM trade mark as it incorporates its trade mark as a whole and the word “finder” is generic and nondistinctive. ...As a result the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s VALIUM mark.
Accordingly the Complaint succeeds under the first element of the Policy.
...
2011-11-30 - Case Details
Complainant
The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s Trademarks
Complainant bases its Complaint on its Trademarks. Complainant notes that the Domain Name exactly reproduces the trademark INTESA SANPAOLO.
...Considering these conditions, the Panel rules as follows.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has based its Complaint on the Trademarks and has submitted copies of the trademark registrations from which it follows that it is the holder of the Trademarks. ...
2011-10-07 - Case Details
The domain name has been registered since 1995.
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. Adding the word “Turkiye” (Turkey) and the generic top level domain “.com” does not avoid the similarity of the Domain Name with the Complainant’s trade mark, especially as the Complainant does business in Turkey. ...Identical or confusing similarity
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark consisting of the Complainant’s LG registered trade mark and the geographical term “Turkiye”, Turkey being a place where the Complainant does business. ...
2011-10-03 - Case Details
These are that:
(1) the Domain Name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;
(2) Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name: and
(3) Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that Complainant is the owner of the United States trademark, TIMESHARES BY OWNER, registration No. 3185992, which Complainant states has been used in commerce since 1998. ...
2011-09-27 - Case Details
The site offers a form to fill in to get further information and an option to download “our free two men and a truck franchise toolkit”.
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark incorporating the mark in its entirety with the mere addition of the generic term “franchise” which merely denotes the Complainant’s franchising structure and, therefore, adds to the confusion caused.
...Identical or confusing similarity
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark consisting of the Complainant’s TWO MEN AND A TRUCK registered trade mark and the generic text “franchise”, franchising being a business in which the Complainant operates. ...
2011-09-15 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Respondent uses the disputed domain name to sell shoes in France, the United States and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. ...Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade marks.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2011-06-16 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name made up of the registered trademarks MARLBORO and SKYLINE is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademarks MARLBORO and SKYLINE. ...Discussion and Findings
This is a very simple case of clear trademark hijacking for the purposes of commercial gain which the UDRP was designed to stop.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is made up of two registered trademarks MARLBORO and SKYLINE. ...
2011-08-17 - 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 incorporates wholly the Complainant’s registered trademark CITRIX, and adds only the descriptive words “corporate house”. ...Accordingly, this Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is not a licensee of, or otherwise affiliated with, the Complainant, and has not provided any evidence that it has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. ...
2011-08-15 - Case Details