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 Respondent’s use of a domain name that incorporates OLX indirectly indicates that it knew of both the Complainant and the OLX trademarks at the time the Domain Name was registered.
2) The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the OLX trademarks because it incorporates the Complainant’s entire trademark and differs from the Complainant’s registered trademark only for the addition of the generic term “pak”. ...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 OLX trademark and has stated that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to it.
...
2012-10-08 - Case Details
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy further states that the burden of proving that all three elements are present lies with the Complainants.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainants have established rights to the DR. MARTENS trademarks in this case and in a large number of prior UDRP cases. ...Consequently, the Panel finds the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainants have established rights. The first element of the paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is thus fulfilled.
...
2012-09-07 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar with its registered GITTIGIDIYOR trademark since it incorporates exactly and entirely the GITTIGIDIYOR trademark as distinctive and main element.
...Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant bears the burden of showing:
(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and;
(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2014-10-20 - Case Details
The well-known nature of a trademark to which a Domain Name is confusingly similar is, in itself, evidence of bad faith registration.
Furthermore, the trademark NESPRESSO was misappropriated by the Respondent on the website corresponding to the Domain Name and the entire website was clearly an attempt to appear similar to the Complainant’s official website.
...Here, the Respondent has defaulted, and it is appropriate in the present case for the Panel to accept the facts asserted by the Complainant and to draw adverse inferences of fact against the Respondent.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has made continuous use of its registered and incontestable marks since 1985, thus has spent much time, money and effort promoting the marks and has established significant goodwill and has to be recognized as well-known trademarks.
...
2013-07-02 - Case Details
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 Decision
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 registration and use which predate the date of registration of the disputed domain names by over 4 years.
...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Trade Mark and holds that the Complaint fulfills the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2013-08-30 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s many registered SANOFI marks. “Sainuofei” is the English transliteration of the Chinese characters for SANOFI that are part of Complainant’s registered mark in China.
...Perhaps most importantly, Respondent should not gain a tactical advantage from its cyberflying as described in Section 3 above by forcing Complainant to proceed in a foreign language.1
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar.
Both the Chinese Trademark Office and the present registrar confirm Complainant’s contention that “sainuofei” is the English transliteration of the Chinese characters that comprise SANOFI, Complainant’s mark. ...
2013-07-15 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its ZIONS BANK, ZIONSBANK.COM and ZIONS trademarks. The Complainant further alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has not provided any evidence of circumstances to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
...
2014-04-11 - Case Details
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark and company name ARTEMIS in its entirety in association with the words “beauty” and “club”. ...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark ARTEMIS and, as a result, finds that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is met.
...
2014-04-17 - Case Details
Complainant
(i) The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to trade marks in which the Complainant has rights.
The first and only distinctive element in the disputed domain name is the word “fidelity” which is identical to the Complainant’s FIDELITY trade mark and similar to the remaining FIDELITY marks. ...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has registered rights to the FIDELITY and FIDELITY INVESTMENTS mark. ...
2014-07-08 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered trademarks, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Based on previous UDRP decisions, “a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. ...
2014-07-02 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant says that each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s FERRAGAMO mark since each comprises “ferragamoby [dictionary word beginning with h] jp.org”. ...Grandtotal Finances Limited et al.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0848.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The test of identity or confusing similarity under the Policy is confined to a comparison of the disputed domain name and the trademark alone: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2014-08-27 - Case Details
Complainants
Complainants consider the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to trademarks and service marks in which they claim to have rights. Complainants further claim that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. ...The Panel will deal with each of these requirements in turn.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element, Complainants must first establish that there is a trademark or service mark in which they have rights. ...
2015-10-14 - Case Details
In accordance with article 10.3 of the Regulations, the Complaint shall in that event be granted, unless the Panel considers it to be without basis in law or fact.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has shown that it has rights in the Trade Marks.
The Trade Marks consist of or contain the name “HVG”, which is incorporated in its entirety in the Domain Name. The addition of the words “werken bij” does not change the overall impression that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trade Marks. Although the Complainant does not give a translation of these words in the Complaint, they are indeed descriptive, meaning “working at”.
...
2016-01-22 - Case Details
The Respondent raises no arguments against consolidation (indeed, he has made no arguments at all), and the Panel finds that the Respondent will not suffer any prejudice from consolidation.
6.2 Substantive Issues
To succeed, the Complainants 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 Complainants have rights;
(ii) the Respondent has 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.
The Panel finds that all three elements have been met in this case.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There are two parts to the inquiry under the first element of the Policy. The Complainants must first demonstrate that they have rights in a trademark, and secondly, must demonstrate that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to such trademark.
...
2016-01-15 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has been able to demonstrate that it has rights to the trademark AUTOCAD. ...For the above-cited reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and therefore the condition of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is fulfilled.
...
2015-10-27 - Case Details
By this ruse, Complainant contends, Respondent is using a Domain Name confusingly similar to Complainant’s FORWARD mark in order to “bolster [the daughters’] reputations as authors and mislead the public.” ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant clearly holds rights in its registered trademark FORWARD. The Domain Name incorporates this mark in its entirety and adds the descriptive words “literature award.” ...
2016-03-18 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends principally that: (i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has 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.
...Turning to the merits, in order to prevail, the Complainant must satisfy each of the three elements under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel determines that the disputed domain names , , and are identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights, TYCO. ...
2016-04-21 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant made the following contentions to establish that the disputed domain name is confusingly
similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The disputed domain name adopts the
Complainant’s HEETS Trademark. ...Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Once the gTLD “.info” is ignored (which is appropriate in this case), the disputed domain name consists of
the Complainant’s registered HEETS Trademark, preceded by the word “vape” and followed by the letters
“uae”. ...
2022-09-19 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the ISHARES
trademark, that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain
names, and that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
...page 4
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established rights in the ISHARES trademark.
Here the disputed domain names incorporate the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety, adding the letters
“hk” and “ihk”, presumably standing as an abbreviation for, or a slight variation of an abbreviation for, “Hong
Kong”.
...
2022-08-16 - Case Details