Complainant
The Complainant contends that:
(1) The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. It incorporates the Complainant’s mark XENICAL in its entirety. ...Numerous UDRP panels held that where a domain name substantially incorporates a complainant’s trademark, this is sufficient to make a finding that the domain name is “confusingly similar” within the meaning of the Policy (see Amazon.com, Inc. v. MCL International Limited,
WIPO Case No. ...
2012-09-21 - Case Details
The Respondent further argues that the disputed domain name and the terms “netbank” and BANKNET are not confusingly similar.
(2) With regard to the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, the Respondent provides a list of its Mexican trademark registrations for BANCANET and trademarks containing BANCANET and states that this demonstrates that it has rights and legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
...Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the following three elements is present:
(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark; 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.
...
2012-09-14 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that:
(1) The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. It incorporates the Complainant’s mark XENICAL in its entirety. ...Numerous UDRP panels held that where a domain name substantially incorporates a Complainant’s trademark, this is sufficient to make the domain name “confusingly similar” within the meaning of the Policy. (See Amazon.com, Inc. v. MCL International Limited,
WIPO Case No. ...
2012-09-03 - Case Details
Arab Health is the longest running healthcare exhibition and congress in the world.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. ...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.
The Panel therefore holds that the Complaint fulfills the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2012-12-10 - Case Details
The Complainant’s trademarks have a strong Internet presence and they are widely used in advertising and promotional activities.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark GM. The disputed domain name includes, as its first and dominant element, the trademark GM in its entirety, together with the ordinary English word “tech” and the numeral “2”. ...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has made evident that it has not licensed or otherwise authorised the Respondent to use its trademark GM. ...
2012-12-05 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is clearly confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark RBS. The suffixes “London” and “online” do not detract from the overall impression but are rather fitted to strengthen the impression that the disputed domain name belongs to, or is affiliated with the Complainant, as the Complainant is very active online and has a strong presence in London.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has shown to have rights in the trademark RBS in many countries, including but not limited to the United Kingdom and the United States.
...
2012-11-28 - Case Details
Complainants
The Complainants contend that:
(a) The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainants’ trade mark SOFITEL. It incorporates the trade mark SOFITEL in its entirety. ...The Panel will proceed to consider each of these 3 limbs in turn.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainants clearly have trade mark rights in the trade mark SOFITEL by virtue of their trade mark registrations. ...
2012-12-20 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant maintains that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademarks. The Complainant states it is a well-known company in Spain, acting in the field of optical goods and services and has been in the business for more than 100 years. ...Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances each of which, if proven, shall demonstrate the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) above.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the trademark COTTET, as the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) suffix “.com” may not be considered in determining identity or confusing similarity under the Policy. ...
2012-08-22 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s registered trademarks and domain names save of the addition of the generic words “bank” and “of”.
...The Panel therefore finds the disputed domain name as being confusingly similar to the registered trademark CARREFOUR.
The Panel finds that the first part of the paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is therefore satisfied.
...
2014-03-07 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its BETSAFE and BETSAFE.COM trademarks. The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated that it owns rights in the trademark BETSAFE. The second level of the Domain Name is identical to the trademark. ...
2013-11-13 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered trademark ETHOCYN. It is composed of the Complainant’s trademark ETHOCYN and the generic term “products”.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark ETHOCYN.
The first element of the UDRP is made out.
...
2013-11-07 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark ELECTRONICSCOUT24, the only difference being the substitution of “electronic” by “elettronica”, which is the Italian equivalent to “electronic”.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well-established in decisions under the UDRP that generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) indicators (i.e. “.com”, “.info”, “.net”, “.org”) may be considered irrelevant in assessing confusing similarity between a trademark and a domain name. ...
2013-11-01 - Case Details
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the complainant must prove each of the following:
(i) the domain name in issue is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant's trademark or service mark; 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.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that that the disputed domain name incorporates wholesale the Complainant`s trademark XELJANZ with the mere addition of the generic term “med,” and also that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s domain name , at which Complainant operates a web site.
...
2013-07-16 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trademarks. It submits that the Trademarks have become famous and well known in Brazil, the domicile of the Respondent.
...Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trademarks.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel accepts that there is no connection or affiliation between the Respondent and the Complainant and the Respondent has not received any license or consent to use the Trademarks in the Domain Name.
...
2013-07-05 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is found that the Complainant has had rights in the JACK WOLFSKIN trademark for more than 25 years.
...Having considered these terms, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the JACK WOLFSKIN trademark in which the Complainant has rights. Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i) is accordingly satisfied.
...
2014-06-24 - Case Details
The Domain Name has been used to display a website confusingly similar to the Complainant's website. This indicates that it had been involved in phishing for financial information in an attempt to defraud the Complainant's customers.
...It can be inferred from the fact that the Domain Name has been used to display a website confusingly similar to the Complainant's website (Annexes 8 and 10 of the Complaint) that the website had been involved in phishing for financial information in an attempt to defraud the Complainant's customers.
...
2015-01-12 - Case Details
Further, there is some basis for the submission that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark because it consists of a misspelled and phonetically identical variation of the Trade Mark. ...As a result, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.
Accordingly, the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy are met.
...
2014-04-29 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark. In the disputed domain name, the world “grainger” is rendered as “granger”. ...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 confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark. ...
2014-01-10 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its FIDELITY trade mark, with the additional elements within the disputed domain names being merely the descriptive word “worldwide” and the descriptive abbreviations “invst” and “invt” respectively.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well-established in decisions under the UDRP that generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) indicators (e.g. “.com”, “.info”, “.net”, “.org”) may be considered irrelevant in assessing confusing similarity between a trade mark and a domain name. ...
2014-01-06 - Case Details
Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established that it holds rights in the trademarks ENTERPRISE and E ENTERPRISE CAR SALES and that its licensees use such trademarks in connection with car sales. ...Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Respondent has not provided any evidence of circumstances to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
...
2014-02-07 - Case Details