Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant must prove each of the following:
(i) The domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the trade mark; and
(ii) The Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the domain names; and
(iii) The domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
...They are also, prima facie, confusingly similar if used in a related field of commercial activity.
No right or legitimate interest
On the basis of the evidence filed and assertions made, the Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant, nor does he appear to be otherwise authorized to use the Complainant’s DERIVITY mark. ...
2001-02-05 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the complainant must prove each of the following:
i) The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark; and
ii) The Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name; and
iii) The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...The domain in dispute is clearly a combination of a generic word 'benefits' (identifying a range of possible benefits) and the trademark GE. It is confusingly similar to various names used by the Complainant in the course of its business, for example, GE Corporate Benefits Delivery and the Complainant's website "Benefits.ge.com".
...
2001-03-27 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
Complainant contends that the domain name in issue is confusingly similar to
its CLICKSEARCH mark. It further argues that Respondent has no legitimate interest
in the domain name, given that the domain name is used
to sell and promote the same computer software products as sold by Complainant.
...As an initial matter, the Panel concludes that the domain name in dispute --
-- is confusingly similar to the CLICKSEARCH mark. The
Panel emphasizes that this determination is based solely on a comparison of
the name and mark. ...
2001-10-25 - Case Details
As to element (i), the Panelist has no hesitation in finding that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trade mark MSN. Given the fame of the Complainant, and the fact that Internet users have become very well acquainted with the Complainant’s website, it is inevitable that anyone seeing the Domain Name would immediately assume it was associated with the Complainant and the Trade Mark.
...Decision
In the light of the findings in paragraph 7 above, the Panelist concludes that:-
- the domain name is confusingly similar to the trade mark MSN of the Complainant;
- the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name;
- the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2002-04-02 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove that:
(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name;
(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...The resolution of this dispute takes place in the context of a consideration of the requirements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is clear that the Complainant has rights to "aarcorp". The subject domain name essentially is identical. ...
2001-07-16 - Case Details
B.Respondent
The Respondent has not
responded.
6.Discussion and Findings
General
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 interest in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii)The Domain Name
has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...The Panel holds that the
Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a service mark in which the
Complainant has rights.
Rights or legitimate interest
of the Respondent
The Respondent has not
disputed the Complainant’s claim that the Domain Name is the Complainant’s name.
...
2001-07-03 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
This is the default case, The Panel shall therefore decide on the basis of the Complainant’s submissions.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name is combination of the SAMSUNG and the suffix “funclub”. ...The Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark and service mark in which the Complainant has rights in many countries all over the world, including Vietnam, where the Respondent is located, and which is well-known in these countries (Policy, Para. 4(a)(i), Rules, Paras. 3(b)(viii), (b)(ix)(1)).
...
2004-06-14 - Case Details
Alternatively, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name and its registered trademark are confusingly similar.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant contends that the GREENIGANS trademark is distinctive of its services as it is a wholly invented word. ...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 disputed domain name, and the
Complainant's trademark are identical. ...
2004-06-02 - Case Details
Specifically, Complainant alleges that the domain name eautoinc.com is confusingly similar to the Mark and its corporate name and, given that both parties provide information and services related to auto parts, Respondent’s use of this domain name is likely to cause consumer confusion. ...In its defense, Respondent alleges that its registration and use of the domain name eautoinc.com is not confusingly similar to the mark EAUTO or the domain name eauto.com. Specifically, Respondent (i) distinguishes the auto parts services it provides on its Internet site from the Internet portal services that Complainant provides on its site, and (ii) claims that EAUTO is a generic term that the U.S. ...
2000-04-14 - Case Details
Respondent
The respondent claims that Scaniabilar is not confusingly similar to SCANIA, and that "Scania is an old county name in Scandinavia and is used by many companies in different combinations", and submitted a number of examples, namely Scania-Metall K/B, Scania Wildlife Park , Scania Futura and Scania Bridgekonsult. ...In connection with Paragraph 4a(i), the Panel considers that SCANIABILAR is confusingly similar to the trade mark SCANIA in connection with trade in motor vehicles, BILAR merely adding to SCANIA the standard Swedish word for cars.
...
2000-05-19 - Case Details
- The domain name "millenniumhotels.com " is identical, or at a minimum, confusingly similar to the Complainant's name and marks.
- The Complainant owns at least 60 trademark registrations around the world relating to hotel services incorporating the word "Millennium", including a trademark registration for the word mark millennium...Decision
7.1 In the light of the above findings, the Panel’s decision is as set out below.
7.2 The domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks (see paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).
7.3 The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (see paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).
7.4 The domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith (see paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy). ...
2000-06-13 - Case Details
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks.
Complainant further alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and has registered and is using it in bad faith. . ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Where the mark alleged is a highly descriptive term, a party seeking to establish
exclusive rights carries a heavy burden of proof in removing the term from the
public domain: Bar Code Discount Warehouse, Inc. v. ...
2003-03-03 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name is .
AQUA PARMALAT is a registered trademark of the Complainant.
...In view of the above, the Administrative Panel finds that the domain name is
confusingly similar to the trademark AQUA PARMALAT of the Complainant.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use its trademark
or to apply for any domain name incorporating any such mark. ...
2003-08-08 - Case Details
Complainant
- The registered domain name, , is confusingly similar
to the Complainant’s business name, Convertech Inc. A true and correct copy
of the United States Patent and Trademark Office record that applies to the
trademark name in question is provided as Annex 3 to this Complaint...Identical or Confusingly Similar
At its Annex 3, the Complainant has exhibited a response dated August 1, 2003,
from the United States Trademark Office about the Complainant’s January 31, 2003,
application for a trademark for the word "convertech". ...
2004-01-28 - 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;
(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 Complainant’s mark 2ADVANCED is a federally registered trademark in the United States. ...
2004-01-23 - Case Details
- The disputed domain name, , which contains the "Pfizer" trademark, is identical to Complainant’s use of its "Pfizer" trademark to identify its Indian subsidiary, Pfizer India, and is confusingly similar to Pfizer’s own website "".
- Respondents have no legitimate use for a web site with the domain name ...Discussion and Findings
In order for Complainant to prevail and have the disputed domain name transferred to it, Complainant must prove the following (the Policy, para 4(a)(i-iii):
- the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
- the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name: and
- the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith
Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant owns a world famous trademark using the name "Pfizer", a trademark with which this Panel is familiar. ...
2000-08-30 - Case Details
In accordance with Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant asserts in essence as follows:
(1) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights;
(2) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the dispute domain name;
(3) The disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The panel has found that the Complainant owns U.S. trademark Registration No. 1,262,885 for the SENSYM mark, the registration of which was issued on January 3, 1984.
...
2003-02-13 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant argues that the Domain Name should be transferred to Complainant
because all of the three elements required by Paragraph 4 (a) of the Policy
are present, namely, (i) Respondent’s Domain Name is "identical or
confusingly similar to a trademark…in which Complainant has rights;"
(ii) Respondent has "no rights or legitimate interests in respect of
the Domain Name;" and (iii) Respondent’s Domain Name has "been
registered and is being used in bad faith."
...Discussion and Findings
With regard to the issue of whether the Domain Name is identical or confusingly
similar to Complainant’s trademarks, the Panel takes notice of the fact
that the Domain Name incorporates in its entirety a distinctive trademark
and as such creates sufficient similarity between the trademark and the
domain name to render it confusingly similar. ...
2002-07-02 - Case Details
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following:
(i) that the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and,
(ii) that the Respondent has no legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and,
(iii) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Application of Paragraph 4(a) to the Facts
I. Identical or Confusingly Similar to Trademark or Service Mark
Complainant is required under Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy to prove that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights. ...
2002-10-08 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant alleges that the Domain Name is identical to its trademark and that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the same mark in which the Complainant has rights. Furthermore, pursuant to the Complainant, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests regarding the Domain Names and is not the owner of the trademark nor has been assigned any rights of the trademark Orgachim. ...Furthermore, the Administrative Panel has no doubt that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark "orgachim."
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel does not have any evidence that Complainant has licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use its trademark or to apply for the Domain Name incorporating this mark.
...
2002-10-24 - Case Details