Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Marks, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...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 Mark acquired through use and registration.
...
2019-06-11 - 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
Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that:
(i) The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; 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.
...Identical or confusing similarity
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark consisting of the Complainant’s REVLON trademark, a hyphen and the generic text “foundations”, face foundation being a product sold by the Complainant. ...
2011-08-08 - 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
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
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
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
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
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
Respondent
The Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has clearly established that it has rights in the NOVO NORDISK Trademark which is registered in several countries including India. ...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the NOVO NORDISK Trademark of the Complainant.
The first criterion of the Policy has been met.
...
2014-11-24 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant owns registered trade mark rights in the CASH CONVERTERS mark as set out above and in particular, Australian word mark registration number 806655 for CASH CONVERTERS. ...The mere inclusion of this common English word does nothing to distinguish either of the disputed domain names from the Complainant’s mark and as a result the Panel finds that each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark.
As a consequence the Panel finds that the Complaint succeeds under the first element of the Policy.
...
2013-06-10 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that:
(i) The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; 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 addition of the non-distinctive text “cn", as such, does nothing to prevent the confusing similarity of the Domain Name with the Complainant's JACK WOLFSKIN trade mark, Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights for the purpose of the Policy.
B. ...
2013-05-02 - Case Details
In accordance with paragraph 15 (a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, Rules, Supplemental Rules and any principles of law that it deems applicable.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The distinctive element in the disputed domain name is the trademark KAREN MILLEN in which the Complainant has rights. ...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark KAREN MILLEN in which the Complainant has rights and that the Complainant has succeeded on this first element of the Policy.
...
2013-09-23 - Case Details
Complainants
The Complainants submit:
1. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainants have rights.
2. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
3. ...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainants have rights in the mark BUCHERER. The disputed domain name consists of the word “bucherer” plus “usa”. ...
2013-09-13 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Domain Name:
(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(ii) 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.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant holds rights in the mark JAMS through registration and use. The Panel further finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the JAMS mark, since the Domain Name incorporates the mark and adds the descriptive term “arbitration.” ...
2012-05-29 - Case Details
Accordingly, despite there being no Response, the Panel is obliged to consider the Complainant’s evidence and arguments.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Disputed Domain Name comprises the word BARCLAYS followed by the generic word “bank” followed by the country designator “uk” with the further addition of the “.com” generic Top Level Domain. ...Curious though the Panel is as to why the Complainant provided no evidence of trademark registrations in Africa, the Panel is satisfied that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s UK and European Community BARCLAYS trademarks, and that finding is sufficient to make good the first limb of the Policy.
...
2012-04-18 - Case Details