Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Accordingly, the disputed
domain name is or confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0,
section 1.7.
While the addition of other terms here, gTLD “com”, may bear on assessment of the second and third
elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between
the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2023-11-02 - 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 that:
(i) it will accept the filing of the Amended Complaint in French ; and
(ii) it will render this Decision in 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.
The disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the Trade Mark (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section
1.7), followed by the letters “fr” (separated by a hyphen).
...
2023-11-02 - 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.
...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.
...
2023-07-27 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant states that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s Mark as it contains
Complainant’s Mark in its entirety, with the addition of a hyphen and the trade mark MONTBLANC, which
belongs to a third party, namely Montblanc-Simplo GmbH. ...Discussion and Findings
For the reasons set out below the Panel finds for Complainant.
page 4
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant asserts it is a large, well-known, tyre manufacturer that has operated for approximately 150
years and has an international footprint and reputation. ...
2023-07-24 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or clearly
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks as it fully incorporates the Complainant’s marks and trade
name “GEA” and even the name of the company “GEA Group”. ...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2023-07-24 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-08-04 - Case Details
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules directs the Panel to decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and
documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that
it deems applicable.
page 3
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Accordingly, the disputed
domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview
3.0, section 1.7.
The Panel considers that the disputed domain name is a clear case of typosquatting. ...
2023-07-31 - Case Details
page 3
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds the Complainant’s rights in the trademark LEERDAMMER acquired through international
registration.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-09-05 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-09-10 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-09-10 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-08-07 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-09-13 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the
highly distinctive SANOFI trade mark in which the Complainant has rights for over 40 years. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-09-02 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...UDRP panels have consistently found that registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a
famous or well known trade mark (as in this case) by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption
of bad faith. ...
2024-09-02 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the
disputed domain name:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which
Complainant has rights; and
(ii) 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.
page 3
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2024-09-24 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-10-03 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name begins with and recites the entirety of the Complainant’s trademark. ...Accordingly, the disputed domain name is here determined to be confusingly
similar to the Complainant’s trademark for the purposes of the Policy. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel
Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.
...
2024-08-15 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its SITECORE
trademark.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed
domain name. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it is the owner of registered trademark rights in respect of the mark
SITECORE. ...
2023-11-27 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-11-22 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s trademark AUTOCAD, since it reproduces the mark in its entirety with the addition of the suffix
“keygen”, which is short for the generic term “key generator”.
...September 21, 2023).
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2023-11-21 - Case Details