Under paragraph 15(a) of the Rules,
“A panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There are two requirements that a Complainant must establish under this paragraph: that it has rights in a trade or service mark, and that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the marks.
...The Complainant has therefore shown that it has the appropriate rights in a trademark, and that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to this mark. The Panel finds therefore that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2010-07-06 - Case Details
It is incumbent upon the Complainant to cumulatively prove:
i) that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which it holds rights; and
ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name; and
iii) that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith.
...i) Identity or Confusing Similarity between the Domain Name and Complainant's trademark
According to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the ICANN Policy, the Complainant must prove that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark, and prove that it has rights in said trademark. From the statements and evidence presented, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s alleged mark and confusingly similar to the Complainant's e-commerce address of . ...
2001-08-23 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that:
- the domain name in issue, is identical to and/or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
- the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name;
- the domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith.
...Therefore the Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark, pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
Legitimacy
The Complainant has the onus of proving the absence of rights or legitimate interests on the part of the Respondent. ...
2002-11-27 - Case Details
Identity or confusing similarity
In this respect, Complainant has, according to Paragraph 4.a (i) of the Policy, to prove that the domain names at issue are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or a service mark in which Complainant has rights.
The domain names at issue are and .
...The Panel therefore considers that in fact the domain names at issue are confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark LAPPONIA.
Under trademark law identity or confusing similarity is present only if they relate to goods of the same or similar kind, with the addition that confusing similarity may, at least under the trademark laws of the European Union countries, be invoked for the benefit of marks which have a reputation in the country concerned if the use of another similar mark would take unfair advantage of, or would be detrimental to, the distinctive character or reputation of the symbol having the reputation.
...
2001-01-23 - Case Details
ICANN Policy, 4 (a)).
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name at issue is [<毎日新聞.com> (BQ—3BV44ZPFMWYIAXQ.COM)]. The Panel finds that the characters
of this domain name “毎日新聞” is completely identical
with the registered trademarks held by the Complainant in Japan. ...When deciding whether the disputed domain name is
identical or confusingly similar to a trademark, the key point is to compare
the second level of the disputed domain name with the substantial part of the
trademark. ...
2001-07-09 - Case Details
It is incumbent on the Complainant to show:
i) that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which it has rights;
ii) that the Respondent has no legitimate rights or interests in the Domain Name and
iii) that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
After having reviewed both parties’ allegations as well as all the evidence provided therewith, the Panel considers these three elements below.
Identical or Confusingly Similar to Trademark
The Complainant provided evidence to the effect that it was registered owner of the trademark CASINO DE MONTE-CARLO for the Principauté de Monaco prior to the registration of the Domain Name by the Respondent. ...
2000-12-15 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Before comparing the trademark rights with the contested domain name, two preliminary issues should be dealt with: firstly, whether the Complainant has duly substantiated its trademark rights over OVOMALTINE, and secondly, whether the trademarks rights of the Complainant should cover the country of incorporation of the Respondent.
...D2000-0796:
“The Policy places no limitation on the operative extent of a mark, which
the Complainant must show the disputed domain name to be identical or confusingly
similar to. If the intention had been that the Complainant’s right to
complain about registration and use of a domain name which is identical or confusingly
similar to its trademark had to be limited to a trademark recognized by the
law of the Respondent’s country of incorporation or residence, the Policy
would have said so expressly”.
...
2005-07-28 - Case Details
The Panel therefore is of the opinion that the domain name of the Respondent is confusingly similar with the Complainant's mark PHARMACIA. This finding follows the opinion of the Panel in the Case No. ...Comparable cases, where in absence of any response of the Respondent the Panel, based on the circumstances of the case, has concluded that the (not identical but) confusingly similar domain name was registered and used in bad faith are e.g. "Deutsche Bank AG v. E-business International (case No. ...
2000-11-16 - Case Details
Domain name identical or confusingly similar
The Complainants have provided evidence of ownership of various trademark registrations and applications for RAI in Italy. ...In view of the above, the Panel finds that the Complainants have proved that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainants according paragraph 4(a)(i) of the ICANN Policy.
6.2. ...
2001-01-15 - Case Details
Accordingly the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights and the Complainant succeeds under this heading.
...Decision
For the reasons set out above, the Panel decides that the Domain Name pharmaciamonsanto. com is confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name and the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2000-08-24 - Case Details
page 4
Notably, the Complainants contend that the ESTEE LAUDER and ESTEE marks are well known and famous
worldwide, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to these trademarks, and the Respondent has
no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-12-18 - Case Details
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the
following:
(i) that the disputed domain names registered by the Respondents are identical or confusingly similar to
a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names;
and
(iii) that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2010/d2010-0281.html
page 5
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2023-08-22 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel decides to consolidate the disputes regarding the nominally different disputed domain
name registrants (referred to below jointly as “the Respondent”) in a single proceeding.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondents
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-05-01 - Case Details
The entirety of the MONETICO trade mark is reproduced within the disputed domain names. Accordingly,
the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the trade mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO
Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
...Respondents
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-02-12 - Case Details
According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its AMWAY trademark, as
it incorporates a notably similar approximation, differing by only one letter (“u” instead of “m”). ...Further, according to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel may draw such inferences from the
Respondent’s failure to submit a response as it considers appropriate.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2024-03-18 - Case Details
The Complainant
also contends that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous
trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. ...https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 5
6.2. Substantial Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2025-02-03 - Case Details
The mere addition of the
elements “exp” and “cr” cannot prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Accordingly, the disputed domain
names are confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.
...There is no evidence, and the Respondent has not alleged, that the Respondent has been or is commonly
known by the disputed domain names or that it has made a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the
disputed domain names. The use of the confusingly similar disputed domain names for websites displaying
the Complainant’s trademark and SUNBIRD & SUN logo and advertising similar services as those provided
by the Complainant cannot qualify as fair use.
...
2024-11-26 - Case Details
The Panel therefore orders consolidation of the
Complainants’ respective Complaints.
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-12-12 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or at least confusingly
similar to the Complainants’ trademarks BFGOODRICH, MICHELIN and UNIROYAL respectively, since they
substantially reproduce these trademarks in their entirety. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-06-24 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel decides to consolidate the disputes regarding the nominally different disputed domain
name registrants (referred to below as “the Respondent”) in a single proceeding.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondents
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-08-07 - Case Details