Discussion and Findings
Under the Policy, paragraph 4(a), the Complainant must prove that each of the following three elements is
present:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark; 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 disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the SKYSCANNER Mark as it contains such trademark
in its entirety, merely adding the English word “is”. ...
2023-11-20 - Case Details
The onus of proving these elements is on the Complainant.
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...
2024-01-23 - Case Details
Based on the available record, the Panel finds the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark in
which the Complainant has rights. The f irst element of paragraph 4(a) the Policy has been established.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-01-22 - 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 established unregistered rights in GREEN TREE FINANCES LIMITED for purposes 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...
2024-01-22 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that:
(a) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trade mark. The disputed domain
name incorporates the Complainant’s trade mark, TANISHQ, in its entirety.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well-accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2024-01-18 - Case Details
page 3
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the f irst 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...
2024-01-03 - 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
Considering these conditions, the Panel rules as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
With regard to the assessment of identity or confusing similarity, it is generally accepted that this test
involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the
disputed domain name (see section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP
Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”))1. .../Alfred Meijboom/
Alfred Meijboom
Panelist
Date: November 23, 2022
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Case No. DNL2022-0040
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith...
2022-11-24 - 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 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
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 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
The Complainant must prove in this administrative proceeding that each of the aforesaid three elements is present so as to have the disputed domain name transferred to it, according to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established its rights in the SPLUNK trademark.
The disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant’s trademark. ...For the reasons above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a non-exclusive list of circumstances that indicate the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...
2018-09-27 - Case Details
Respondent
Respondent did not respond to Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the VIRGIN and VIRGIN MEDIA marks in view of its trademark registrations. ...The Panel further finds that the whole of the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the VIRGIN MEDIA mark as they incorporate the trademark fully and as the addition of the ".online" or the ".site" generic Top-Level Domain does nothing to ameliorate the entire reproduction of the VIRGIN MEDIA trademark.
...
2017-01-13 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar or identical 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.
...In all the circumstances, 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.
...
2017-01-11 - Case Details
The Complainant argues that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. The Domain Names incorporate the whole of the Complainant’s GUCCI trademark. ...For the purposes of assessing confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”.
The Panel finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2017-03-09 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or 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 have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
...In all the circumstances, 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.
...
2017-04-07 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainants’ contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainants have shown that they have registered rights in the Trade Marks as proprietor and licensee respectively. ...Therefore, the Panel finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Trade Marks in which the Complainants have rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainants have to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names (WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 2.1). ...
2017-04-27 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant’s contentions may be summarised as follows:
(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s name and registered trade mark AMALGAMATED BANK. The addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) is to be disregarded when comparing the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s trade mark for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trade mark AMALGAMATED BANK in which the Complainant has rights.
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant asserts that it has not licensed or permitted the Respondent to use its name and trade mark in the disputed domain name. ...
2019-02-26 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar or identical 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.
...In all the circumstances, 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 which incidentally predate the date of registration of the disputed domain name by several decades.
...
2016-10-14 - Case Details