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
The subject domain names and
are obviously confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, in each
case merely adding a non-distinctive internet-related element, in the one
case the prefix "e" and in the other the suffix "online".
...Decision
In the light of the findings in paragraph 6 above, the Panel concludes that:
- each of the subject domain names and
is confusingly similar to the trademark "TELSTRA" belonging
to the Complainant; and
- the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in either
of the subject domain names; and
- each of the subject domain names has been registered and is
being used in bad faith.
...
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
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
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
As a result, the name STANSTED AIRPORT has sufficient secondary association with the Complainant for common law rights to exist under the law of England and Wales.
The disputed domain name is also confusingly similar to the Registered Trade Mark in that the Registered Trade Mark contains the element STANSTED, which is identical to an element of the disputed domain name. ...D2001-1121) and the cases
there cited.
The Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark BAA STANSTED and Device.
The Complainant has established this element.
...
2002-01-25 - 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
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
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.
...The Panel determines
that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar
to Complainant’s "DESERT SCHOOLS" mark.
Complainant has met the burden of proving that Respondent is the registrant
of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a service mark
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 and use.
...
2001-07-13 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.1 The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied both elements of the requirement that the Respondent's domain name be identical or confusingly similar to a marking in which it has rights. ...Complainant has therefore demonstrated that Respondent's domain name is identical or confusingly similar to marks in which it has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
6.2 Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides that a Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a domain name in, without limitation, the following three ways. ...
2003-07-07 - Case Details
D2002-1025).
(ii)The domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's "VOLVO" mark.
There is no question that "vovlo" is confusingly similar to Complainant’s famous "VOLVO" trademark.
...Those requirements 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.
...
2003-10-07 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name is not identical to the mark HARRODS
in which the Complainant has rights. ...However the Panel agrees with the Complainant that the domain name is confusingly
similar to the mark HARRODS for the following reasons:
- The gtld .com cannot be taken into consideration when judging confusing similarity...
2004-01-21 - Case Details
Complainant
The domain name is identical and confusingly similar
to the Complainant’s mark GUINNESS.
A review of the Domain Name shows that the only difference between the domain
name and the Complainant’s mark GUINNESS is the inclusion of the prefix "sir"
and the inclusion of "COM" as a Top-Level Domain.
...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel has considered the allegation by the Complainant as to the identity
of the domain name at issue with the Complainant’s trademarks. ...
2004-01-08 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has demonstrated rights in the ERMENEGILDO ZEGNA trademark, including registrations in Italy, where Respondent is located. ...In view of all the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark ERMENEGILDO ZEGNA.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant must show that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. ...
2004-01-21 - Case Details
First, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly
similar to its registered STARFALL mark. The addition of a "z" at
the end of the name does not, in the Complainant’s submission, render the disputed
domain name distinct or non-confusing.
...Accordingly, for purposes
of the present Decision, the Panel will assume, without deciding, that the disputed
domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark and that the Respondent
lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.
...
2004-04-08 - Case Details
For convenience, references to “the Complaint” and “the Response” below are inclusive of the parties supplemental submissions.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the first thing which the Complainant must prove is that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which it has rights. ...The Complainant was operating in business substantially prior to the Respondent. The Respondent’s use of confusingly similar domain names to operate in a similar field of business suggest that the Respondent was seeking to take advantage of the Complainant’s pre-existing reputation.
...
2012-10-04 - Case Details
The Parties’ Contentious
5.1 The Complainant
5.1.1 Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant’s case is that:
• The registered trade marks contains the name of the city, ROUEN, twice. ...The Respondent states that ROUEN is a geographic term. It is not a trademark.
5.2.2 Identical or Confusingly Similar
• The two domain names in issue incorporate the geographic term, not the Complainant’s trade mark. ...
2001-06-29 - Case Details
i) Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant submitted evidence, which incontestably and conclusively establishes rights in the
trademark AMGEN.
...That being said, the Respondent has used the disputed domain names in an apparent
fraudulent email campaign, reinforcing the finding that the Respondent’s intent was to use the confusingly
similar disputed domain names to confuse or mislead recipients of said emails as to their origin or affiliation
to the Complainant. ...
2023-01-05 - Case Details