The Complaint
In its complaint the Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its trademarks. Further, the Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the domain names as he has no trademark right to the name "absolut" and as there is no connection or co-operation between the parties. ...I. Identical or Confusingly Similar Domain Name
The domain names contain the word "absolut", which is identical to the Complainant’s well-known trademark. ...
2002-12-11 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends as follows:
Identical or confusingly similar
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CGC mark, which is recognizable in the disputed domain name and is the dominant part thereof. ...The mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. ...
2022-01-26 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to trademarks or service marks in which the Complainant has prior rights for the following reasons:
1. ... combines terms with English-only definitions, namely, “pharm”, an abbreviation of “pharmaceuticals,” and “Celgen”, a coined term which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CELGENE mark and company name and has no known Chinese definition or transliteration.
3. ...
2013-09-20 - Case Details
Respondent's employment with Complainant terminated on March 11, 2014.
(i) Identical or confusingly similar
Complainant contends the Domain Name is identical or at least confusingly similar to trademarks in which Complainant has rights. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel must first determine whether the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. ...
2015-03-10 - Case Details
Other circumstances may apply to whether the requirements of paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and (iii) are met.
7.1 Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel has no hesitation in finding that the Complainant has rights in the trademark AMARYL by virtue of its numerous registrations around the world The question is whether the disputed domain names are similar to the mark. ...The words BRAND and BRANDY might be held to be confusingly similar were it not for the fact that each has a well-known dictionary meaning. In this case however, neither the trademark, nor the botanical name, is so well known as to avoid or reduce confusion. ...
2005-12-09 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
(i) Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its BROOKFIELD
PROPERTIES Marks.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-09-16 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that each of the three elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been met and the Domain Name should be transferred.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that it has established significant trade mark rights in CLEAN & CLEAR which predate the registration of the Domain Name. ...Failure to prove any one of these factors is fatal to the Complaint.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established that it has rights to the trade mark CLEAN & CLEAR.
...
2012-01-09 - Case Details
Domain Name is Confusingly
Similar/Identical to a Trademark or Service Mark in which the Complainant has
Rights
The Complainants have demonstrated
that individually they each have rights in the respective marks SONERA and TELIA
which are registered as trademarks in many countries. ...The Panel therefore finds
that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the First Complainant’s
mark SONERA and confusingly to the Second Complainant’s mark TELIA.
...
2002-07-09 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name reproduces the Mark, in which it has
rights, and is confusingly similar to the Mark insofar as the disputed domain name contains the Mark and that
the words “commerce” and “europe” after the Mark are not capable to prevent a finding of confusing
similarity, as the Mark remains recognizable in the disputed domain name.
...Requirements of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2024-05-31 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant’s submissions may be summarized as follows:
(i) The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant argues that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its SKYSCANNER trademark. ...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical and Confusingly Similar
The Complainant’s trademark rights have been evidenced by the Complainant in the Complaint. ...
2021-12-20 - Case Details
Complainant
(1) The disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s AUTODESK trade mark and is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s AUTODESK trade mark in which it has rights. The term “cautodesk” consists of a very minor misspelling of the Complainant’s AUTODESK trade mark, i.e., by the addition of the letter “c” before the trade mark itself. ...The “mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a famous or widely-known trade mark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith” (per section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition). ...
2021-06-22 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP, to succeed in this proceeding, the Complainant must prove each of the following elements with respect to the Domain Name:
(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 Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP, the Complainant must prove that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2021-02-12 - Case Details
Complainant
The Disputed Domain Name fully incorporates and is confusingly similar to the WALGREENS Mark owned
by the Complainant, and in which Complainant has well established rights. ...The addition of the terms “score” and “360” do not prevent the finding of confusingly similarity under the first
element.
Accordingly, for the purposes of the Policy, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to a mark in
which the Complainant has rights.
...
2023-07-27 - Case Details
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed in this proceeding and have the
disputed domain name transferred, the Complainant must establish that the three following elements are
satisfied for the disputed domain name:
(i) the disputed 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 disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...On the basis of the evidence submitted by the Complainant and, in particular, with regards to the content of
the relevant provisions of the Policy (paragraph 4(a), (b), and (c)), the Panel concludes as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under the first element of paragraph 4(i) of the Policy, the Complainant must establish that the disputed
domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has
rights.
...
2023-06-22 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the Domain Name, and that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith. ...Having considered all the circumstances of this case, the Panel determines that English is the language of the proceeding.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights to the Trade Mark.
The threshold test for confusingly similarity involves the comparison between the trade mark and the domain name itself to determine whether the trade mark would generally be recognizable within the domain name. ...
2017-03-31 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its prior registered OSRAM trade mark which enjoys a high reputation worldwide. The addition of the geographical location “shanghai” does not impact on the confusingly similarity assessment.
...Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark.
Therefore, the Complainant has satisfied the first element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2018-05-17 - Case Details
Complainant is still required to prove each of the three elements required under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has rights in the JLL trademark, as demonstrated by numerous trademark registrations, including U.S. registration number 4564654, which was issued on July 8, 2014. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's JLL trademark and that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2018-07-25 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following:
(i) the disputed 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 disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the owner of a number of trademark registrations for JACK WOLFSKIN (word and device), including the German national trademark registration No 1049490 JACK WOLFSKIN, registered on June 8, 1983.
...
2013-10-01 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its well-established
trademarks SODEXO and SODEXO LIVE !, which are reproduced in their entirety and constitute the
dominant and distinctive elements of the disputed domain name. ...Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to trademarks in
which the Complainant has rights and that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2026-03-02 - Case Details
Considering the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the VUSION
trademark for the purposes of the Policy, and that the first element of the Policy has been established.
...Discussion and Findings
6.2. Substantive issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-11-21 - Case Details