Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark BARCLAYS registered, among other products, for “financial services’’.
...D2010-0988, where the panel held that:
“It is long established by past panel decisions that a domain name incorporating a trademark in its entirety with the addition of generic and non-distinctive prefixes and/or suffixes is confusingly similar to the trademark (e.g., Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. bmwcar.com,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0615; Birkenstock Orthopädie GmbH & Co. ...
2011-08-12 - Case Details
Complainant
(i) The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the ARLA trademark insofar as the disputed domain name contains that trademark.
(ii) The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no registered trade marks or trade names corresponding to the disputed domain name nor any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. ...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the ARLA trademark, which it incorporates in its entirety.
Thus, the Complainant has satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2011-05-26 - Case Details
Complainant claims that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s HERMES Trademarks and domain name because they combine its trademark with generic terms. ...The disputed domain names and are confusingly similar to Complainant’s HERMES Trademarks. Both domain names incorporate Complainant’s HERMES word mark in its entirety and add only the generic terms “online” and “store”. ...
2011-05-24 - Case Details
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the three following elements are satisfied:
- The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights; and
- 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.
...The Trading Force Limited,
WIPO Case No. D2002-1038.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks.
...
2010-04-08 - Case Details
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove to the Panel that the following three circumstances are cumulatively met in order to obtain the transfer of 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;
(ii) the Respondent does not hold rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used by the Respondent in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There are two requirements that a complainant must establish under this paragraph, namely: that it has rights in a trademark, and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark.
...
2010-07-27 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is, according to the submitted evidence, the owner of the registered trademark WELLENSTEYN. ...Having the above in mind, it is the opinion of this Panel that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark WELLENSTEYN and that the Complainant has proved the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2012-05-18 - Case Details
Complainants
The Complainants contend that the disputed domain name is identical or at least confusingly similar to the second Complainant’s SOFITEL trademark because it reproduces it in its entirety. ...He contends that “the former owner tried to attack us by still using our company name for the ordering of services, just to damage us.”
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name incorporates the whole of the Complainants’ trademark SOFITEL, and adds the descriptive word “saigon”. ...
2012-04-11 - Case Details
The use of a combination of the registered marks of the First and Second Complainant is identical or alternatively confusingly similar to the marks which have at all times been registered and maintained by the Complainants.
...Identity or confusing similarity
The disputed domain name incorporates the whole of both the CLIFFORD CHANCE and PÜNDER registered trade marks (the use of "UE" instead of "Ü" being immaterial, as is the suffix ".com"). It is thus confusingly similar to both marks. See The Chase Manhattan Corporation and Robert Fleming Holdings Limited v. ...
2001-02-02 - Case Details
In addition, Complainant claims that Respondent's Registration of the Domain Name has to be interpreted as a retaliatory action resulting from the above mentioned payment dispute;
- Domain Name is identical and confusingly similar to Complainant's mark NEROMIX;
- Respondent has no legitimate interests in the name NEROMIX. ...Identical or confusingly similar Domain Name: Policy 4(a)(i)
In this case, the Panel needs to inquire whether Complainant has established
rights to the trademark NEROMIX. ...
2001-10-05 - Case Details
The Parties' Contentions
Complainant's Summarized Contentions:
- The domain name , apart from the top level domain,
is identical to and confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark Clorox,
its domain name and its trade names Clorox and The
Clorox Company...Discussion and Findings
In order for the Complainant to prevail and have the disputed domain name
transferred to it, the Complainant must prove the following
(the Policy para 4(a)(i-iii)):
- the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark
or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
- the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect
of the domain name; and
- the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has exhibited overwhelming proof showing it has been using
its "Clorox" trademark for many years in the United States and abroad and
that this trademark has for a similar period been registered in multiple
categories in the United States and abroad. ...
2002-02-28 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, and that Respondent registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith.
...Discussion
Our inquiry focuses on three issues: (1) is the Domain Name confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; (2) does Respondent have a legitimate interest in the Domain Name; and (3) has the Domain Name been registered and used in bad faith? ...
2001-12-05 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant must prove each
of the following:
(i) The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the trade
or service mark; and
(ii) The Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect
of the Domain Name; and
(iii) The Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad
faith.
...Accordingly, it is found that "Paradoxcanada" is confusingly similar to
the Complainant's Paradox trade marks. Accordingly, this ground is made
out by the Complainant.
...
2002-06-21 - Case Details
The fact that this trade mark is a device mark is not relevant in these proceedings.
The domain name is confusingly similar to the trade marks "Seve Ballesteros" in the name of Fairway, S.A. and to Severiano Ballesteros’s rights in his own name.
...So far as paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is concerned, this Panel concludes that the domain name is identical to the mark "Seve Ballesteros Trophy" and confusingly similar to the device marks "Seve Ballesteros" and to Mr Severiano Ballesteros’s common law rights in his own name.
...
2001-06-25 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph
4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that
(i)The Domain Name
is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which
the Complainant has rights; and
(ii)The Respondent
has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii)The Domain Name
has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...In the circumstances, the
Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which
the Complainant has rights.
Rights or legitimate interest
of the Respondent
The Complainant has asserted
that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the Domain
Name.
...
2001-05-11 - Case Details
Subsequently, the Complainant found the disputed domain name to have been registered on March 24, 2002, in the name of the Respondent "Domain Admin", with a username of "jeffbhav". No response was received to a similar request for transfer, dated June 26, 2002.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar Domain Name
As a result of the longstanding extensive use of the trading name and trade mark ASIAN PAINTS by the Complainant, the mark has become internationally known for the Complainant’s activities. Therefore a minor misspelling or typographical variation is not enough to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trade mark.
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark.
Legitimacy
In view of the fame of the Complainant’s mark, the Respondent’s choice of the disputed domain name could not result from mere coincidence. ...
2002-09-06 - Case Details
These are as follows:
(i) The Respondent's 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 interests in respect of the Domain name; and
(iii) The Respondent's domain name is registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Discussion and Findings
(i) The Respondent's domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights
The Panel accepts the factual evidence of the Complainant's trade mark rights and is satisfied that the Complainant has long established registered and unregistered trade mark rights in the mark "NASDAQ" throughout the world.
...
2002-04-02 - Case Details
Complainant alleges that Respondent’s Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, that Respondent lacks any 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. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This is a fairly straightforward case of cybersquatting.
Complainant is, however, playing with fire when it invokes common law trademark
rights and presents absolutely no documentary evidence to prove up such rights.
...
2005-02-28 - Case Details
Respondent also alleges that Complainants do not use "Rael" as a trademark or service mark, that "rael.com" is not confusingly similar to Complainants’ full names, and that "Rael" is not protected because it is a pseudonym adopted by the founder of the Raelian Religion. ...A. The Domain Name is Identical or Confusingly Similar to Complainants’ Trademark
Respondent raises significant questions as to the trademark interests of a religious organization in the name of its founder. ...
2001-04-06 - Case Details
Under Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the complainant must prove each of the following:
(i) The domain name in issue is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark or service mark; and
(ii) the 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.
...Decision
The Panelist finds that: (a) the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks VOLVO; (b) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (c) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith by Respondent.
...
2003-01-23 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that:
- the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to trademarks and service
marks in which the Complainant has rights; and
- the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain
Name; and
- the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Domain Name
The Domain Name at issue is . As set forth above, the
non-rebutted evidence has shown that the Complainant is the holder of various
registered trademarks and service marks, inter alia KANGWONLAND (in words).
...
2003-07-14 - Case Details