The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trade mark IKEA, which is a distinctive and invented term with no inherent meaning in English or French. ...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 not identical to the Complainant's IKEA trade mark. However, it incorporates the distinctive IKEA mark as its initial and most striking part. ...
2016-01-05 - Case Details
The Complainant argues that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety, in combination with the descriptive terms “cheap” and “parts”. ...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark BMW.
The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. ...
2017-06-06 - Case Details
Those elements are:
(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Even in a case where the Respondent has failed to file a Response, it is still necessary for the Complainant to prove that all three of the above elements are present.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it filed a US trademark application for RAPANOFAL on September 22, 2016, and received a Notice of Allowance of that trademark on May 2, 2017. ...
2017-06-27 - 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
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
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Mark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name and that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has uncontested rights in the Mark, by virtue of its trademark registrations. ...
2017-04-13 - Case Details
Under these circumstances, the Panel finds it proper and fair to render this decision in English.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated with supporting evidence that it holds trademark registrations for MICHELIN in various jurisdictions, including in the Republic of Korea. ...Further, there is no specific meaning attached to “michelin”, nor “michelins”. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
For the reasons mentioned above, the Panel finds that the first element has been established.
...
2017-04-07 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainants allege that the disputed domain name is identical with or confusingly similar to a trademark in which they have rights, as the disputed domain name contains the trademark BIGOTTI in its entirety, with no addition other than the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) indicator “.com”.
...Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainants have satisfied the Panel that they have trademark rights in their BIGOTTI trademark for the purposes of these proceedings.
...
2017-04-03 - 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
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
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. ...Turning to 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 disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to ROLAND GARROS, a mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...
2017-02-09 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its ACTELION trademark, containing the Complainant's mark in its entirety, with the mere addition of the descriptive or non-distinctive words "clinical research".
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well established in decisions under the UDRP that the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") (e.g., ".com", ".info", ".net", ".org") may typically be considered irrelevant in assessing confusing similarity between a trademark and a disputed domain name. ...
2017-02-09 - Case Details
Addition of generic terms such as “cheap”, “sale” and “online” are descriptive and so do not impact the comparison of the conflicting signs. The Domain Names are clearly confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark HUGO BOSS.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to the name HUGO BOSS which is the name of the Complainant’s company. ...Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar for the purpose to a mark in which the Complainants have rights.
D. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and has not provided any legitimate reason why he should be able to use the Complainants’ mark in the Domain Names. ...
2017-02-02 - 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
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the MARLBORO trademark. The mere addition of the letters "covboy", an obvious and intentional misspelling of the generic word "cowboy", does not distinguish the Domain Name from the MARLBORO trademark, but exacerbates the likelihood of confusion.
...Accordingly, the Panel finds the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's MARLBORO trademark.
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not connected or affiliated with the Complainant nor authorized by it in any way to use the MARLBORO trademark to register the Domain Name.
...
2017-07-14 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the mark AGFA through registration and use. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the AGFA mark. The Domain Name merely adds the dictionary word “store” to the mark, which does nothing to prevent the confusing similarity between the mark and the Domain Name.
...
2018-09-05 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant's contentions may be summarised as follows:
(i) The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark because it combines the trade mark WOLFORD with the geographic term "Kobenhavn". ...Accordingly the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark in which the Complainant has clearly established its rights.
...
2017-10-03 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the marks CASINO DE MONACO, MONACOBET, MONACOPOKER, and MONACOGAMING through registration and use. The Domain Names are confusingly similar to these marks, since they incorporate a dominant feature of the marks, i.e., “monaco”, and add the number “88,” which is suggestive of luck, and a suffix of letters either suggestive of Europe (“euro”) or otherwise of little meaning.
...
2017-09-25 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark when it includes that mark, regardless of any additional terms also incorporated. ...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 not identical to the SAFELITE trademark of the Complainant. ...
2019-02-25 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark VIVARA and that the disputed domain names only differ from the Complainant’s trademark by the addition of the Top-Level Domains (“TLDs”) “.site”, “.club” and “.me”.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for the VIVARA mark.
The disputed domain names incorporate the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety. ...
2017-10-25 - Case Details