Complainant
A summary of the Complainant's contentions is as follows:
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark. The disputed domain name consists of the Complainant's mark plus the term "vr", which stands for "virtual reality". ...For the above reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2016-07-05 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name and the trademark VERIZON are identical or confusingly similar.
...As the only pleading before the Panel is in English, the Panel will render its decision in English.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is identical to the registered trademark VERIZON. ...
2016-05-09 - Case Details
Considering these conditions, the Panel rules as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The country code Top-Level Domain ("ccTLD") ".nl" is typically disregarded under the confusing similarity test under the Regulations, since it is a technical registration requirement (see Roompot Recreatie Beheer B.V. v. ...Therefore, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's Trademark within the meaning of the Regulations and that the first requirement of article 2.1(a) of the Regulations is met.
...
2016-03-24 - 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 reproduces the entirety of the Complainant's distinctive trademark and company name, except for an inversion of the letters "e" and "l" in the word "arcelor". ...The disputed domain name in the instant case contains a slight and obvious misspelling of the Complainant's trademark, but the misspelled trademark remains the dominant and principal component of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name is accordingly confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.
The first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is accordingly proven.
...
2016-06-21 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends as follows:
(1) The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. The main element of the Domain Name “millennium” is identical to the Complainant’s MILLENNIUM trademark. ...Accordingly, the Panel holds the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, and the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2016-05-19 - Case Details
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant NCH has registered trademark rights to the figurative mark TERMINALEN.
...The Panel therefore finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainants' trademark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainants have satisfied the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...
2016-06-10 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks as they include the trademarks GENERAL ELECTRIC and GE in their entirety and that adding geographical indications do not help in eliminating the confusion. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the trademarks of the Complainant.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondents do not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. ...
2016-06-01 - 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 presented sufficient evidence to prove its registered trademark rights in the MICHELIN mark.
...Accordingly, the Panel holds the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark, and the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2016-07-12 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant holds many trademark registrations for the trademark WESTINGHOUSE including registrations in Egypt. ...Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainant and that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2018-03-21 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the mark ELECNOR through longstanding registration and use. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, since it incorporates the mark ELECNOR in its entirety and adds the letter “s,” which addition does little or nothing to diminish confusing similarity to the mark.
...
2017-11-29 - Case Details
Aside from the space between words, the disputed domain name is identical to the MONSTER ENERGY Trademarks, and certainly is confusingly similar to the MONSTER ENERGY Trademarks. The Panel agrees that the gTLD does nothing to further distinguish the disputed domain name from the MONSTER ENERGY Trademarks.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel finds that Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. ...
2017-05-02 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is made entirely up of the registered trademark MICHELIN to which the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".xin" has been added. ...As the only pleading before the Panel is in English, the Panel will render its decision in English.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is made up of the registered trademark MICHELIN, and the gTLD ".xin". ...
2017-06-14 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Marks acquired through use and registration.
...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Marks.
Accordingly, the first element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been made out.
...
2017-04-28 - Case Details
As the only pleading before the Panel is in English, the Panel will render its decision in English.
6.2. Substantive Decision
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is made up of the registered trademark AXA, the numeral "3", the Roman letter "k" and the gTLD ".loan". ...In fact, the use of the gTLD ".loan" suggests a link to financial services. The Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the registered trademark AXA.
The first part of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is therefore satisfied.
...
2017-04-18 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The evidence presented demonstrates that the Complainant is the owner of several trademark registrations for SONY around the world, including the US.
...The Panel finds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been proved by the Complainant, i.e., the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has not submitted a response to the Complaint.
...
2017-08-15 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant's contentions may be summarised as follows:
1. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant has longstanding trade mark registrations in many countries throughout the world including the United States. ...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant's AXA trade mark. The term "AXA" has no meaning apart from its significance as the trade mark of the Complainant. ...
2017-08-03 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
5.A.1 As noted in paragraph 4.2 above, Complainant is the proprietor of the registered trade mark and service mark WORLD CONCERN.
5.A.2 The disputed domain name is identical but for the hyphen between the words "world" and "concern."
...That is, the Policy expressly recognizes that other circumstances can be evidence relevant to the requirements of paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and (iii) of the Policy.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.5 From paragraph 4.2 above, Complainant has rights in the WORLD CONCERN trade mark. ...
2017-08-02 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends principally that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. ...On the merits, in order to prevail, the Complainant must satisfy each of the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel determines that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to PENTAIR, a mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...
2017-07-31 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its ROTHSCHILD trademark, merely adding the descriptive or non-distinctive element “wm” plus the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) indicator “.com” to its ROTHSCHILD trademark.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel recognizes the Complainant’s trademark ROTHSCHILD as being well known.
It is well established in prior decisions under the UDRP that gTLD indicators (e.g., “.com”, “.info”, “.net”, “.org”) may typically be considered irrelevant in assessing confusing similarity between a trademark and a disputed domain name. ...
2017-07-24 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Under the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove on the balance of probabilities that:
- the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights;
- the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and,
- the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established rights in the mark BAKKT by virtue of its registered trade mark for that term .
...
2020-11-26 - Case Details