About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

Full Text Search on WIPO Panel Decisions

Found 57807   document(s)s (0.049 sec)

Rows

<<  <  46121 - 46140  >  >>

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2015-2159 for dentsply-sirona.com, dentsplysirona.net html (12 KB)

Complainants The Complainants contend that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the marks in which the Complainants have rights. Specifically, the Complainant DENTSPLY International Inc. notes that it has used and owned registrations for the trademark DENTSPLY since 1982. ...As the disputed domain names consist entirely of "dentsply" and "sirona", they are confusingly similar to the Complainants' trademarks. Additionally, given that the disputed domain names consist of the exact two terms in the same order as the name of the new company Dentsply Sirona, there is a heightened likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain names and the Complainants' marks. ...

2016-01-28 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2015-1823 for arnoldclarkcarhire.com html (11 KB)

Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that: (i) The 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 Domain Name; and (iii) The Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. ...As such the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights for the purpose of the Policy. B. ...

2015-12-14 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision DNL2015-0062 for rolls-roycemotorcars.nl html (11 KB)

Complainant The Complainant submits that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Marks because it comprises the Trade marks in their entirety, which greatly increases the likelihood of confusion between the Domain Name and the Trade Marks. ...Therefore, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical or, in any case, confusingly similar to the Trade Marks. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights to or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. ...

2015-12-16 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2017-0892 for casumocasinobonus.com, casumofreespins.net html (12 KB)

The Complainant argues that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The Domain Names incorporate the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety, in combination with the descriptive terms “casinobonus” and “freespins”. ...For the purpose of assessing confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the generic Top-Level Domains “.com” and “.net”. 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. ...

2017-07-05 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2018-1476 for creditagricole.online html (12 KB)

Complainant The Complainant essentially contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its prior trademarks for CREDIT AGRICOLE, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. ...Based on the arguments and evidence submitted, the Panel's findings are as follows: A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the Complainant has shown that it has valid rights in the sign CREDIT AGRICOLE, based on its use and registration of the same as trademarks in a number of jurisdictions, commencing decades prior to the registration of the disputed domain name. ...

2018-09-05 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2018-0689 for inqovi.com html (12 KB)

Discussion and Findings Pursuant to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements: (i) the 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 Domain Name; and (iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant must demonstrate that it has rights in a trademark or service mark and, if so, the domain name must be shown to be identical or confusingly similar to that mark. ...

2018-06-01 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2018-0505 for iyzi.com html (12 KB)

The Complainant believes the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s IYZI trademark. Furthermore, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name and has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. ...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. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is not in dispute that the Complainant has acquired rights in the mark IYZI as the trademark owner of the registered trademarks for that term in Turkey from 2016. ...

2018-05-28 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2018-0688 for redemvi.com html (12 KB)

Discussion and Findings Pursuant to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements: (i) the 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 Domain Name; and (iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant must demonstrate that it has rights in a trademark or service mark and, if so, the Domain Name must be shown to be identical or confusingly similar to that mark. ...

2018-05-25 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2017-1145 for prelumino.com html (12 KB)

Complainant Complainant considers the Disputed Domain Name to be confusingly similar to a trademark in which it claims to have rights. Complainant argues 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 Complainant must first establish that there is a trademark or service mark in which it has rights. ...

2017-08-24 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2017-1258 for bets10.site html (12 KB)

Complainant According to the Complainant the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BETS10 trademarks. The addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.site” does not have any impact on the overall impression of the dominant portion of the disputed domain name and is therefore irrelevant to determine the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name to the trademarks. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the Complainant has established rights in the trademark BETS10 through its registration and use. ...

2017-08-23 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2017-1223 for 奥迪.com html (11 KB)

Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Marks, 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. ...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Marks. Accordingly, the first element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been made out. ...

2017-08-10 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2017-1382 for inphi-corp.com html (12 KB)

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the mark INPHI through registration and use. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the INPHI mark, since it incorporates that mark in its entirety and adds the generic suffix “corp” (widely understood to denote a corporation). ...

2017-09-18 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2017-0585 for toefl-registration-ets.org html (11 KB)

This includes the acceptance of plausible evidence of the Complainant which has not been disputed. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the marks ETS and TOEFL pursuant to its registrations and also by virtue of its use of these marks in the USA and other countries. The Panel considers that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to these marks, which it incorporates in their entirety together with descriptive or generic elements, namely the word “registration” and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.org”. ...

2017-06-26 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2017-0983 for dropbo.com html (12 KB)

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. ...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. ...

2017-07-24 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2016-0952 for firefox.lol, mozilla.lol html (13 KB)

Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Anthony Frangiosa, Installernet, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2016-0412. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Complainants have strong rights in both FIREFOX and MOZILLA, as shown by the many years of continuous and extensive usage in commerce, as well as by the numerous trademark registrations in the United States and the European Union. Complainants are also right when they argue that the disputed domain names, and , are confusingly similar to their marks. The mere addition of a TLD to a trademark or service mark does not differentiate the resulting domain name from the mark. ...

2016-07-21 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2016-0567 for babylissprobrasil.com html (12 KB)

The first element is that the "domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights". Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). ...Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii). A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the BABYLISSPRO mark is a widely known mark, including in Brazil and accepts the evidence that the Complainant has established registered rights in the BABYLISSPRO trademark. ...

2016-06-02 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2016-0959 for volkswagenfrance.com html (12 KB)

According to Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its mark because it integrates the mark in its entirety, adding only the descriptive geographic term "France". ...Thus it is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark. See Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft v. Muqadas Wattoo, WIPO Case No. ...

2016-07-11 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2016-0944 for michelin.amsterdam html (12 KB)

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that a complainant must prove each of the following: (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. ...At the same time, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, if a party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any provision of, or requirement under, the Rules, or any request from the Panel, the Panel shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name contains the Complainant's distinctive and widely known trademark MICHELIN. ...

2016-07-07 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2019-0198 for tommmybahama.com html (12 KB)

The disputed domain name is nearly identical and/or confusingly similar to the TOMMY BAHAMA trademark, as well as the domain name for the Tommy Bahama website registered and operated by the Complainant. ...Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name is not identical to the distinctive TOMMY BAHAMA registered trademark of the Complainant. ...

2019-04-15 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2018-0229 for jetblueflights.org html (12 KB)

Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name incorporates that mark in its entirety and without modification, and that as the first and most prominent part of the disputed domain name. ...Therefore the Panel holds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Nothing before the Panel suggests that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...

2018-05-18 - Case Details