A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the mark DEWALT through registration and use. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark, since it incorporates the mark DEWALT in its entirety. The addition of the term "tools" is probably the most descriptive term that could conceivably apply to Complainant's products.
...
2017-10-24 - 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
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the mark EURO PALACE through registration and use demonstrated in the record. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark, since it incorporates the mark EURO PALACE in its entirety. The addition of the descriptive word "casino" does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.
...
2017-11-13 - Case Details
Complainant
The following is a summary of the Complainant's contentions:
The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade marks. They consist of the Complainant's trade mark plus a menagerie of descriptive, generic terms. ...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the mark TUMI virtue of its registered trade marks for that term.
...
2017-11-06 - 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
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
Internet users seeking information on the Complainant, its business or hotels are bound to suppose that the disputed domain name was registered, and will link to pages posted, by the Complainant. At the very least it is confusingly similar.
As to the second, the Complainant denies that the Respondent has any connection with the Complainant or has ever been known by the disputed domain name and there is no evidence of a legitimate commercial activity.
...In the administrative proceeding, a complainant must prove that each of these three elements is present.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the first of those elements has been proved.
If the suffix “.group” is disregarded the disputed domain name is identical to United States trade mark registration number 2838984.
...
2018-09-24 - 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 registered trade marks in the European Union for BETS10 and CASINOMAXI registered in 2011 for, inter alia, gaming and betting services. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Names are each confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights for the purpose of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent does not appear to be commonly known by the Complainant's marks and the Complainant has not authorised the Respondent to use them. ...
2017-12-19 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the mark APEX through registration and use. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, since it incorporates the mark APEX in its entirety and adds the letter “vapor,” which word describes the type of products offered under the APEX mark and hence does not diminish confusing similarity to the mark.
...
2017-12-08 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the mark 3-MEN MOVERS through registration and use. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, since it incorporates the mark 3-MEN MOVERS in its entirety and adds the geographical indicator “Houston”, where Complainant is a major provider of moving services.
...
2017-12-08 - 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
Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s Trademark as it reproduces Complainant’s Trademark in its entirety, with the addition of the generic term “group”. ...b) The Domain Name is not identical to but for the reasons set out above confusingly similar to Complainant’s Trademark.
Accordingly, the Panel is satisfied that the first element of the Policy has been met.
...
2018-03-08 - Case Details
Complainants
The Complainants contend that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Mark. Indeed, it reproduces the Mark (i.e. SOFITEL) in its entirety. The Complainants also allege that as a result of their extensive use of the Mark, the public will reasonably assume that the Domain Name is owned by, or at least is economically related to, the Complainants.
...The failure of the Complainant to prove any one of them means the Complaint must be denied.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the first Complainant has rights in the Mark, that is, in SOFITEL. ...
2018-02-23 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the mark GRAINGER ONLINESAFETYMANAGER through registration and use. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to this mark. The Domain Name is identical to the mark except it transposes the “e” and the “t” in the word “safety” within the Domain Name. ...
2018-02-23 - Case Details
The Domain Name contains the Complainant’s mark WHATSAPP in its entirety together with the dictionary term “sniffer” and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.net”, neither of which prevent the Domain Name being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark.
The Respondent is not authorised by the Complainant to use the Complainant’s WHATSAPP mark. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights for the purpose of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
It is clear from the evidence that the Respondent has used the website attached to the Domain Name to promote software not originating from the Complainant.
...
2018-01-15 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant submits that it holds registered rights to the AGFA trademark as outlined above. The disputed domain name is alleged to be confusingly similar to this registered mark, as it is incorporates the same letters as the AGFA trademark. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided clear evidence that it owns registered trademark rights in AGFA in connection with the graphics and photographic sector. ...
2018-02-07 - Case Details
The Complainant uses its subdomain to give access to users of ORANGE BUSINESS to webmail.
The Domain Name, registered in 2017, is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ORANGE and ORANGE BUSINESS trade marks adding only descriptive terms “webmail” and/or “business”. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to marks in which the Complainant has rights for the purpose of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
It is clear from the evidence that the Respondent has attached the Domain Name to commercial sites not connected with the Complainant and sites using the ORANGE name and logo to purport to offer free gifts.
...
2018-01-26 - 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 trademarks ETAM and UNDIZ. ...Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the trademarks of the Complainant and that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2019-03-14 - Case Details