Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has shown that it has registered rights in the Trade Marks. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trade Marks as it incorporates the element BOL.COM, of which the Trade Marks consist, in its entirety. ...Therefore, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trade Marks in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, the second element a complainant has to prove is that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. ...
2020-09-16 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
5A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
5.A.1 Complainant asserts rights in the SAINT-GOBAIN trade mark, examples of which are summarized in paragraph 4.A.3 above.
5.A.2 Complainant further points to the fact that its corporate name is “Saint-Gobain”.
5.A.3 Complainant is also the registered owner of the domain name , which was registered on December 29, 1995, and to which its website resolves.
5.A.4 Complainant points to the fact that the disputed domain names incorporate the SAINT-GOBAIN trade mark in its entirety as well as both its corporate name and said domain name.
5.A.5 In the circumstances, Complainant asserts that both the disputed domain names are identical to its SAINT-GOBAIN trade mark.
...That is, the Policy expressly recognizes that other circumstances can be evidence relevant the requirements of paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and (iii) of the Policy.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.5 From the particulars of the relevant trade marks set out in paragraph 4.A.3 above, clearly Complainant has rights in the SAINT-GOBAIN trade mark, which is a well-known mark.
6.6 Since both the disputed domain names incorporate the SAINT-GOBAIN trade mark in its entirety, they are identical to that mark.
6.7 Accordingly, Complainant meets the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2020-09-15 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to trademarks in which
Complainant has rights, in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-09-09 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark, the
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and the disputed
domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to the PAYTM Trade Mark
and identical to the PAYTM INSURANCE Trade Mark.
page 4
B. ...
2022-08-01 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its reputable
NOVAGOLD trademark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name,
and the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...The Panel will further analyze the potential concurrence of the above circumstances.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant holds rights in the NOVAGOLD trademark.
The disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s trademark exactly.
...
2022-08-04 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s Marks. Disregarding the Top-Level Domain (“TLD”), the disputed domain name is identical to
the Complainant’s 1XBET mark.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
On the evidence provided by the Complainant, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has rights in the
Marks. ...
2022-07-08 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends as follows:
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the D. CANDAUX trademark in which the Complainant has rights, because it incorporates this trademark in its entirety, and the omission of the dot is not sufficient to avoid confusing similarity.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel notes that the Complainant is the registered owner of trademark registrations for D. ...
2022-07-12 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade
Mark; the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and the
disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the
language of the proceeding shall be English.
6.2 Substantive Elements of the Policy
The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark acquired through use and registration.
...
2022-05-27 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade
Mark; the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and the
disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the
language of the proceeding shall be English.
6.2 Substantive Elements of the Policy
The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark acquired through use and registration.
...
2022-07-01 - Case Details
In view of the above, the Panel determines that the disputed domain names shall be consolidated under this
proceeding in accordance with paragraphs 3(c) and 10(e) of the Rules.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate its registered rights in the SWIRE
trademark.
The SWIRE trademark is wholly reproduced in the disputed domain names.
A domain name is “identical or confusingly similar” to a trademark for the purposes of the Policy when the
domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of other terms in the
domain name (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2022-09-14 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark; that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
...Accordingly, conditions for proper consolidation of the disputed domain names into one matter are present here.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied: (i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights, (ii) the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, and (iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. ...
2022-03-07 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Trade Mark, the
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, and the disputed
domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
...Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the
language of the proceeding shall be English.
6.2 Substantive Elements of the Policy
The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Marks acquired through use and registration.
...
2022-04-19 - Case Details
The Complainant’s mark is known worldwide and is very famous.
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established rights in the mark ZALO by virtue of its registered trade marks as well as unregistered trade mark rights deriving from its extensive worldwide use of that mark.
...
2022-03-21 - Case Details
Adding a generic word describing Complainant’s services to Complainant’s trademark results in a confusingly similar domain name under the Policy.
Complainant began acquiring rights in its CINTAS trademark in the United States in 1973 when it first started using the brand. ...Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has demonstrated it owns registered trademark rights in the CINTAS trademark in the United States. ...
2022-03-17 - Case Details
Substantive Elements of the Policy
The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark acquired through use and registration.
...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark and that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2022-03-11 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated it owns registered trademark rights in it CVS, CVS HEALTH, and
CVS/PHARMACY, and CVS Logo Marks (“CVS Marks”), and has shown that no other entity has rights in or
uses the CVS Marks. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-04-25 - Case Details
Therefore, the Panel holds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the BPCE trademarks of
the Complainant.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has not replied to any of the contentions of the Complainant. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-04-22 - Case Details
The Complainant must evidence each of the three elements required by paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order
to succeed on the Complaint, namely that:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the
Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established rights in the ELECTROLUX trademark.
The disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s ELECTROLUX followed by the gTLD “.homes”.
...
2022-12-02 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the trademark GILEAD through registration and use
demonstrated in the record. The Panel also concludes that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to that
mark. The GILEAD mark is clearly recognizable within the Domain Name, and the additional word “health”
does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the mark and the Domain Name.
...
2022-09-26 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed the Complainant must satisfy the Panel that:
(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 has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusing similar to the Complainant’s Mark. ...
2022-09-20 - Case Details