A Identical or confusing similarity
It is prima facie obvious that the Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s WOMEN ON WAVES mark and, therefore, that they are confusingly similar.
B Rights or Legitimate Interest of the Respondent
The Respondent has not filed a Response and does not appear to have any rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Name.
...Decision
In the light of the foregoing, the panelist decides that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark and the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests relating to the Domain Name which was registered and used in bad faith.
...
2001-02-02 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
The Complainant alleges in summary:
(a) The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark in that there is added to the mark generic terms, i.e., sex, auction and the number 4.
...The domain names "ebay4sex.com" and "ebaysexauction.com" in the judgment of the Panel, are confusingly similar to the mark. The addition of the generic words does not detract from the potential to confuse Internet users.
...
2001-01-18 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that the said domain name is confusingly similar and "practically identical" to the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant points out that the single difference between the Complainant’s trademark "VEUVE CLICQUOT" and the said domain name "veuvecliquot.com" is that the letter "c" does not appear in the said domain name. ...In the view of this Administrative Panel the said domain name is confusingly similar to the said trademark. The single difference between the Complainants trademark and the said domain name "veuvecliquot.com" is that the letter "c" does not appear in the said domain name. ...
2000-09-21 - Case Details
The domain names "MONSANTOPHARMACIA.COM" and "MONSANTOPHARMACIA.NET" are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. The insertion of the word "Monsanto" to the domain name is devious given that the domain name was registered by the Respondent soon after the announced merger of two giants in the pharmaceutical industry whose names must be known worldwide. Persons worldwide accessing the domain names would be bound to think that the domain names had a connection with Monsanto and Pharmacia & Upjohn – the merged entity. The Panel decides that the domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks.
Likewise, the Panel decides that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names at issue. ...
2000-08-04 - Case Details
Complainant contends that Respondent has registered a domain name which is identical or confusingly similar to a service mark in which Complainant has rights; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the domain name; and that the Respondent has registered and is using the domain name at issue in bad faith.
...Pursuant to Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to prevail, a Complainant must prove each of the following elements:
(i) That the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainants have rights;
(ii) that the Respondent has no legitimate interest in respect to the domain name; and
(iii) that the domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.
...
2000-07-31 - Case Details
The Complainant, of course, carries the onus of making its case.
6.2 Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s Marks.
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has very extensive rights in the word SMIRNOFF as a trademark throughout the world.
...The Panel finds that the Domain Name is, at the very least, confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
6.3 The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
...
2001-08-15 - Case Details
Complainant
Essentially, the contentions of the Complainant are as follows:
The Disputed Domain Names wholly incorporate the Complainant's FREELOTTO and FREELOTTO.COM marks, trade names, and domain names, and are confusingly similar to the marks, trade names, and domain names of the Complainant;
The Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names; and
The Respondents have registered and are using the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith.
...D2000-0140 (April 24, 2000) notes that under the Policy, even if the respondent is in default,
"…the complainant must prove that each of these three elements are present."
6.3 Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant claims and has established first use and ownership of the FREELOTTO marks. ...
2001-07-11 - Case Details
Discussion and
Findings
Domain Names Identical
or Confusingly Similar to Complainant’s Mark
6.1. In relation
to the domain name , the relevant part of this
domain name is "fairmonthotels". ...Accordingly, this Administrative Panel finds that both the
domain names the subject of this Complaint are confusingly similar to
a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
Respondent’s Rights
or Legitimate Interests in the Domain Names
6.2. ...
2001-05-23 - Case Details
Complainant
The domain name "musclenfitness.com" is the same as or is confusingly similar to the MUSCLE & FITNESS mark registered to and used by Complainant on magazines and on-line magazines. ...The panel finds the disputed domain name to be virtually identical and to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant has established this element.
Illegitimacy
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out, without limitation, circumstances which, if proved, establish a registrant’s rights or legitimate interests to a disputed domain name. ...
2001-03-20 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
Complainant asserts:
(i) The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s name and pending trademark. Complainant sent a protest letter to the Respondent by e-mail and certified mail notifying Respondent that Complainant owned the GROW mark and demanding that Respondent surrender the Disputed Domain Name because it is confusingly similar to Complainant’s GROW trademark.
...Thus, the Panel finds for the Complainant on the first element, that Respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name.
...
2001-11-01 - Case Details
Complainant
Spencer asserts that (i) the three contested domain names are identical or confusingly similar to service marks in which it has rights; (ii) Absolute has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names; and (iii) that the domain names were registered and are being used by Absolute in bad faith.
...The Panel also finds that the contested aladdinbailbonds domain names are identical to Spencer’s ALADDIN BAIL BONDS mark, and are confusingly similar to both of Complainant’s ALADDIN BAIL BONDS and ALADDIN marks. Therefore, paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
...
2001-09-13 - Case Details
Identical or Confusingly Similar to a Trademark or Service Mark in which the Complainant has Rights
The Complainant is the registered owner of the well-known trademark GE in the United States in a number of diverse classes. ...Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is not limited to registered trademarks
The Panel considers that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark GE and its unregistered trademark WOODCHESTER, which have been used in combination by the Complainant’s subsidiary in Ireland.
...
2001-11-01 - Case Details
Cyberguard asserts that
Cyber Surveillance adopted the confusingly similar domain name in question long
after Cyberguard’s first use and United States federal registration of the Cyberguard
mark. ...Complainant
Cyberguard asserts that
the contested domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the CYBERGUARD
trademark in which Cyberguard has rights; that Cyber Surveillance has no rights
or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and that the contested
domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2001-10-26 - Case Details
Alternatively, it contends that the subject domain name "… is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark in that the mark is entirely incorporated into the domain name".
...Whether a domain name is confusingly similar is an objective inquiry related to the mark and the domain name and is not anchored in the activities of the parties.
...
2001-10-18 - Case Details
Opinion of the Panel
1. Is the domain name identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights?
The domain name is not identical to any of Complainant’s
registered trademarks. It is, however, confusingly similar. Complainant points
out correctly that the addition of a geographical term to the name of Complainant’s
hotels makes the likelihood of confusion greater, not less, since it appears
to indicate one of the 193 locations at which Complainant renders its services
– not coincidentally, the very location from which Respondent seeks to render
its own audio-visual services. ...
2003-02-05 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Domain Name is, pursuant to the Complainant, confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
The Complainant adds that there is a considerable risk that the common public would perceive the Respondent’s Domain Name either, as a domain name owned by the Complainant or that there would be some kind of commercial relationship with the Complainant. ...Hence, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.
A. Legitimate rights or interests in respect of the Domain Name.
...
2003-02-06 - Case Details
The impugned Domain Name is identical or confusingly
similar to the Complainant’s trademark "CARFAX." The Complainant has
incontestable rights due to registration in the United States of America and
due to long and extensive use the Complainant has gained common law rights over
the trademark "CARFAX."
...Each of these requirements will be dealt with separately.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.3. Complainant has used the trademark CARFAX, whether registered or otherwise,
since 1984. ...
2002-09-24 - Case Details
Moreover, in accordance with Paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, if a party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any provision of, or requirement under, the Rules or any request from the Panel, the Panel shall draw such inferences therefrom, as it considers appropriate.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This question raises two issues: (1) Does the Complainant have rights in a trademark or service mark; and (2) Is the domain name identical or confusingly similar to such trademark or service mark.
...The Panel agrees with
the Complainant that the domain name is confusingly similar with the CAIXA ECONOMICA
FEDERAL mark, as the words CAIXA ECONOMICA are sufficient to identify the Complainant
in the eyes of Brazilian and Latin American Internet users. ...
2003-06-30 - Case Details
Complainant alleges that passive holding of these names constitutes a violation of paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy since these names are identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks of others.
Complainant states that Respondent has used the domain name "verasign.com" to resolve to a web site entitled "Onlinemalls.com". ...Footnote 6) The Panel determines that the disputed domain names "veresign.com" and "verasign.com" are confusingly similar to "VERISIGN" in the sense of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
Complainant has met the burden of proving that Respondent is the registrant of domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights, and it has thus established the first of the three elements necessary to a finding that Respondent has engaged in abusive domain name registration.
...
2001-02-05 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
(i) Complainant
The Complainant alleges that the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the Guerlain trademark. It points out that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. ...The two Domain Names and are therefore to be considered as confusingly similar to the Guerlain trademark in the sense of Article 4 (a) (i) of the Policy.
(ii) 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.
...
2001-03-06 - Case Details