Complainant
Complainant contends that the domain name at issue is identical or confusingly similar to trade marks and service marks in which Complainant has rights, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name at issue, and that Respondent has registered and is using the domain name at issue in bad faith.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The word “claro” is the equivalent of the English word “clear” in the Spanish or Portuguese language. ...
2009-01-22 - 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
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
These elements are that:
(i) Respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the 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.
...Decision
As to the requested relief in these proceedings, Complainant has proved the necessary element that the name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark or service mark. Complainant, however, has not shown that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and that Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith and is using it in bad faith. ...
2001-02-12 - Case Details
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
Secondly, according
to Complainant, the fact that some domain names registered by Namezero, which
are (confusingly) similar to some famous trademarks are redirected to Mr. Edens’
website (www.thelighted.com) is indication that the Respondent has registered
the domain name in order to prevent Complainant from reflecting its trade mark
in a corresponding domain name and that Respondent has engaged in a pattern
of such behaviour.
...Respondent states that before Complainant contacted Respondent for the
first time he used test pages as a website.
7.Discussion and Findings
a.Trademark rights
Complainant
has provided sufficient evidence of its rights to the trademark ROBEIN in the
Benelux.
b.Identical or confusingly
similar
The domain name
is clearly confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark ROBEIN.
...
2001-05-03 - Case Details
ii) Registration for the purpose of preventing the owner of an identical or confusingly similar trademark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct.
...According to this provision, registration for the purpose of preventing the owner of an identical or confusingly similar trademark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.
...
2001-01-16 - 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
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
Boutique" is a general term commonly used in order to indicate the shop through which fashion products are commercialized.
The Panelist finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks since the word "boutique" is directly related to the Complainant’s business and therefore the combination with Etro is clearly confusing (Yahoo! ...Decision
The Panelist decides that: (a) the domain name "etroboutique.com" is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademarks; (b) Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name "etroboutique.com"; and (c) the domain name "etroboutique.com" has been registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondents.
...
2000-12-14 - 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
In order to succeed in its Complaint the Complainant has to show the following
elements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"),
paragraph 4 (a):-
(i) The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade
mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect
of the domain name.
...The Panel proposed to deal with each of these elements in turn.
(i) The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade
mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant contends that the relevant part of the domain name "Telstra
International" is confusingly similar to the name Telstra which is the subject
of the extensive portfolio of trade marks "Telstra" referred to above.
...
2002-06-05 - Case Details
Parties' Contention
5.1 Complainant
The Complainant contends that the said Domain Name, which is confusingly similar to its United States trade mark registration, cannot be used without inferring an affiliation to it. ...In view of the default it is open to the Panel, under paragraph (14)(b) of the Rules to:
"draw such inferences…as it considers appropriate."
6.2 Elements to be proved
To succeed, the Complainant must establish under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy that
i) the said Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which it has rights;
ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the said Domain Name; and
iii) the said Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent.
6.3 Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant is a company organized and existing under the laws of the Cayman Islands and has its principal office there. ...
2002-07-29 - Case Details
Parties' Contention
5.1 Complainant
The Complainant contends that the said Domain Name, which is confusingly similar to its United States trade mark registration, cannot be used without inferring an affiliation to it. ...In view of the default it is open to the Panel, under paragraph (14)(b) of the Rules to:
"draw such inferences…as it considers appropriate."
6.2 Elements to be proved
To succeed, the Complainant must establish under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy that
i) the said Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which it has rights;
ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the said Domain Name; and
iii) the said Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent.
6.3 Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant is a company organized and existing under the laws of the Cayman Islands and has its principal office there. ...
2002-07-29 - Case Details
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy
directs that Complainant must prove, each of the following:
(i) The domain name
is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights;
and
(ii) 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.
The domain at issue is
identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s FIRST UNION mark. The only
difference between FIRST UNION and the disputed domain is that Respondent has
added the generic word "credit," which Complainant also uses in connection
with FIRST UNION. ...
2002-07-08 - 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
These elements are that:
"(i) Respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a
trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(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."
...Furthermore, the Panel decided in the case of and
that "Each of the disputed domain names
incorporates in full the "Vivendi" mark, in combination with either
the "Universal" or "Seagram" marks and, thus, are confusingly
similar to the Complainant’s marks." [2]
(see also the case [3]).
Complainant therefore met the burden of proving that Respondent is the registrant
of domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks
owned by Complainant.
...
2002-04-02 - 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
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