Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainants
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainants’ prior rights in its trademarks, company name, and domain names.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the VALEO mark.
...
2021-11-02 - Case Details
On the basis of the arguments and evidence introduced by the Complainant, the Panel concludes as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights in FXCM by virtue of its use and registration of the same as a trade mark.
...Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s FXCM trade mark.
Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of the first element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2021-10-27 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. The disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the trademarks ACCOR and ACCORHOTELS. ...The Panel finds the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks and finds for the Complainant under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2021-08-27 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the trademarks ANTHROPOLOGIE and ANTHRO through registration and use demonstrated in the record. ...The Panel concludes that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the ANTHRO and ANTHROPOLOGIE marks, as those marks are clearly recognizable in the Domain Names. ...
2021-11-10 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel permits this Complaint to proceed in the form in which it was filed.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Once the gTLD “.top” is ignored (which is appropriate in this case), the disputed domain name consists of the whole of the textual component of the Complainants’ registered design trademark MERCADO LIVRE. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainants have rights.
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondents are not a licensee of the Complainants, are not otherwise affiliated with the Complainants, and have not been authorized by the Complainants to use their MERCADO LIVRE and MERCADO LIBRE trademarks. ...
2021-11-03 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant prove all of the following three elements in order to be successful in these proceedings:
(i) the disputed 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 disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant, under the first requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, needs to establish that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trade mark or a service mark in which it has rights.
...
2021-09-10 - Case Details
To avoid unnecessary delay and expense, the Panel orders that the language of proceedings continue in English; this Decision has been rendered accordingly.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has provided evidence establishing that it has trademark rights in the HAAHTELA mark through registrations in the European Union, United States and internationally. ...UDRP panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith on the part of Respondent. ...
2021-09-08 - Case Details
Complainant
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The disputed name incorporates the Complainant’s trademarks in its entirety. ...Considering the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks in which the Complainant has rights, therefore, the Complainant has established its case under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the .UA Policy.
...
2021-10-14 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ALLIANZ mark. Through the disputed domain name, customers will expect to reach one of the websites belonging to the Complainant or its subsidiaries. ...On the other hand, the proceeding may proceed expeditiously in English.
6.2. Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has adduced evidence to demonstrate its established rights in the ALLIANZ mark.
...
2021-10-13 - Case Details
Complainant
On the merits, the Complainant contends that each of the three elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied in the present case, as follows:
(a) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the registered trademarks in which the Complainant has rights, as the disputed domain name reproduces the trademark REGENERON in its entirety.
...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is required to establish the two following elements: (1) that it has trademark rights, and, if so, (2) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark(s).
...
2021-10-13 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated that it owns multiple trademark registrations for the mark CANVA prior to the registration of the disputed domain name on April 16, 2021.
...For the foregoing reasons the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CANVA Trademark in which the Complainant has exclusive rights.
B. ...
2021-10-11 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated that it owns and has rights to the trademark registration for the mark
ARISTA prior to the registration of the disputed domain name on September 26, 2022.
...For the foregoing reasons the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s ARISTA trademark, and that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of
paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2023-02-14 - Case Details
On the basis of the arguments and evidence introduced by the Complainant, the Panel concludes as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights in the BREITLING mark by virtue of its use and
registration of the same as a trade mark.
...Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
BREITLING trade mark.
Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of the first element under paragraph 4(a) of the
Policy.
...
2023-02-14 - Case Details
The disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s well-known trademark KHADI and is therefore
confusingly similar. By virtue of prior adoption, long and continuous use and extensive publicity and promotion,
the trade name and trademark KHADI have acquired tremendous goodwill and enviable reputation worldwide
page 3
amongst the consumers and public in general. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has shown that it is the owner of several KHADI trademark registrations in
several jurisdictions. ...
2022-11-22 - Case Details
In the Panel’s
view, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the WOTIF mark since this mark is fully reproduced
in the disputed domain name and the addition of a hyphen followed by the English term “travels” cannot
prevent a finding of confusing similarity. ...The mere registration of a domain name that is
confusingly similar to a third party’s trademark, being aware of such trademark and without rights or
legitimate interests, is evidence of bad faith.
...
2023-01-04 - Case Details
These elements are that:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which
complainant has rights;
(ii) respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.
Each of the aforesaid three elements must be proved by a complainant to warrant relief.
page 4
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has provided evidence of rights in the trademark AUTOMATION ANYWHERE, including by
registration at the USPTO, by registration as an International Trademark under the Madrid System, and by
use in commerce. ...
2023-01-04 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ROTHSCHILD mark.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. ...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the
Complainant has rights. The Complainant has satisfied the first element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2023-01-02 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant must demonstrate that it has rights in a trademark and, if so, the Domain Name must be
shown to be identical or confusingly similar to such trademark. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-11-11 - Case Details
NOLDC, Inc., Alternative Identity, Inc., and Kentech, WIPO
Case No. D2006-0292).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant belongs to Unimed do Brasil Confederação Nacional das Cooperativas Médicas, owner of
trademark registrations for the trademark UNIMED in Brazil.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark UNIMED, as it incorporates said
trademark entirely, with the addition of the geographical term “fortaleza”. ...
2022-11-10 - Case Details
The Panel will therefore deal with each of these requirements.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element, the Complainant must first establish that there is a trademark or service mark in which
it has rights. ...case=D2013-2244
page 4
It is well established that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), here “.net”, may be disregarded when
considering whether the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the
Complainant has rights (see section 1.11 of the WIPO Overview 3.0).
...
2023-01-18 - Case Details