Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion
and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to the Policy, paragraph
4(a)(i), a complainant must prove that the domain names are identical or
confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has
rights.
...D2000-0090, in which the Panel ruled that “one who has constructive
knowledge of the trademark, and who contacts the trademark owner and advises
the owner that he has acquired a confusingly similar domain name which he intends
to use in competition with the trademark owner, has no rights or legitimate
interests in the domain name”. ...
2004-06-25 - Case Details
All three elements must be present before a complainant can succeed in an administrative proceeding under the Policy.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Respondent’s domain name consists of the Complainant’s registered trademark PFIZER preceded by the laudatory term, “thanks.”
...The 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 has offered no evidence that it holds a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. ...
2007-04-30 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The relevant parts of the domain names in dispute are “vodafone-servicecentre” and “vodaphone-express.” For the purposes of assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark, the suffix “com” must be disregarded as being simply a necessary component of a generic top level domain name.
...
2004-09-07 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is undisputed that the Complainant is the owner of the trademark “PORSCHE.”
The disputed Domain Names consist of the Complainant’s trademark to which
(1) the suffix “.com” and (2) the generic term “buy”
is added. ...Therefore, the Panel finds the Domain Names, i.e. the domain names and , to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark “PORSCHE.” Correspondingly, the first criterion, as per Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, is established.
...
2004-09-03 - Case Details
The Complainant further contends that the first domain name is confusingly similar to the registered trademark of the Complainant, with the only difference being the omission of the word “the;”
• The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. ...The Panel will now consider each of these three tests in turn:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established to the satisfaction of the Panel that it has a valid registration of THELITTLEHOUSECOMPANY.CO.UK in the United Kingdom. ...
2004-10-13 - Case Details
Foreman have become associated with all foods that are capable of being grilled.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks because it is identical except for the addition of “.com.”
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...Under that analysis, the domain name is not confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks because the name “George Foreman” is independently associated with the legendary boxer. ...
2004-12-10 - Case Details
Discussion and findings
According to paragraph 4 (a) (i) to (iii) of the Policy the Complainant in the Administrative Proceeding must prove that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. ...Thus, as far as the word and device marks are concerned, the domain name at issue is confusingly similar to these word device marks. The Complainant has, in his writ subsequent to the Complaint of November 23, 2000 and the annexes to this writ, submitted sufficient evidence to his contention in the Complaint that he is owner of trademark rights in the denomination "5asec", either word or device marks worldwide. ...
2000-12-12 - Case Details
It claims that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the federally registered trade mark, details of which are given above.
The Complainant claims that the Respondent has no rights to the name and mark CLUB MONACO. ...However, it is sufficient for present purposes that the Complainant is able to prove that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which it has rights.
The Complainant has produced evidence to show that it is the proprietor of the trade mark CLUB MONACO for cosmetics. ...
2000-10-18 - Case Details
The Complaint concludes that the baseballweekly.com domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BASEBALL WEEKLY trademark, alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in issue which Complainant never authorized Respondent to use, and that Respondent has registered and used the domain name in bad faith.
...The Presiding Panelist concludes that, in these circumstances, the domain name in dispute, baseballweekly.com, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered mark USA TODAY BASEBALL WEEKLY. The criteria of paragraph 4 (a) (i) of the Policy has been met.
...
2000-10-06 - Case Details
The Respondent contends that the Domain Name is not confusingly similar to TRAILBLAZER LEARNING because the Domain Name is not a misspelling of TRAILBLAZER LEARNING and does not contain the phrase TRAILBLAZER LEARNING. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Before the Panel can make a determination as to whether the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights, the Panel must first be convinced that the Complainant indeed has rights in a trademark or service mark. ...
2006-09-06 - Case Details
Having considered the Complainant’s case and the available evidence, the Panel finds the following:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel has no hesitation in finding that the Complainant has rights in the trade mark AMBIEN; rights which predate any rights in the domain name by more than ten years.
...Accordingly the Panel finds the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark and so decides that the Complainant has satisfied this element of the Policy.
...
2005-09-20 - Case Details
Each of the aforesaid three elements must be proved by a complainant to warrant relief.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant holds several trademarks for RED BULL worldwide, including in Sweden, where the Respondent has his postal address. ...For the purpose of assessing whether the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainant has rights, the ccTLD “.nu” is disregarded, being a necessary element of Domain Name. ...
2005-10-31 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
On the evidence, the Complainant has rights in the U.K. registered mark TUNIT DIESEL PERFORMANCE.
...It is unnecessary to decide whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the registered mark TUNIT DIESEL PERFORMANCE.
The Complainant has established this element of its case.
...
2005-11-25 - Case Details
D2002-0002,
in which the Panel ruled that the domain name is
substantially identical to and confusingly similar to the trademark “TOYOTA”.
The Complainant further states that the Complainant
is also offering financial services under the trademark “BMW”. ...Dariusz Herman, Herman DOMCREATE et co., WIPO
Case No. DNAME2004-0001).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
a) The Panel finds that the Complainant has established that it has trademark rights in the word mark BMW and in BMW as a word and design mark. ...
2005-05-31 - Case Details
The Complainant maintains that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the KRAFT mark, as it incorporates that mark in its entirety and also is merely a singular version the Complainant’s website domain name , a website the Complainant designed to be visited by children and their parents. ...International Electronic Communications
Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name
is confusingly similar to Complainant’s KRAFT mark
for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...
2006-01-19 - Case Details
International Electronic Communications
Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the
MARTHA STEWART marks, in which the Complainant clearly has established rights
through registration and use. ...D2000-0662 (domain name incorporating mark in its entirety is confusingly
similar). The Panel finds that to be the case here. Accordingly, the Complainant
has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2006-01-12 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark, and that the Respondent is making an unauthorized use the domain name to offer clothing and other items bearing the NASCAR mark. ...International Electronic Communications Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s NASCAR mark, in which the Complainant unquestionably has established rights through registration and continuous and extensive use. ...
2007-12-07 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its name and principal trademark, HURRIYET.
The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. ...Respondent
The Respondent denies that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, but does not challenge the existence of the Complainant’s trademark rights. ...
2008-04-04 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant submits:
i. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trade marks ELASTICSEARCH and
ELASTIC in which the Complainant has rights;
ii. ...The Panel agrees with this submission and finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the
trade mark ELASTICSEARCH in which the Complainant has rights within paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2023-09-29 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence presented, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the NOVARTIS mark.
...Language of the Proceeding
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-09-29 - Case Details