Complainant
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its SISTER LOCATION trademark because it consists of Complainant’s mark in its entirety, with a merely generic additional term, “free,” and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
...D2013-1930(“The addition of the generic and common term ‘free’ as well as of the generic Top-Level Domain (‘gTLD’) ‘.com’ does not distract from or change the reading of the Domain Name.”). Therefore, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SISTER LOCATION mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2018-01-26 - 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.
...
2018-01-26 - 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.
...
2018-01-19 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s ESSITY trademark, with the addition of the descriptive word “group” and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. ...In accordance with the findings above, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks within the meaning of the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), and the first element of the Policy is thus fulfilled.
...
2018-04-13 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s trademark and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.website”. ...For all these reasons, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Both Parties agree that the Complainant and the Respondent have never had any commercial connection with each other. ...
2018-04-12 - Case Details
Complainants
The Complainants rely on their rights in the above-referenced trademark and submit that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark FNAC DARTY, allege that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and that the disputed domain name has been registered or used in bad faith.
...Discussion and Findings
In order for the Complaint to succeed, the Complainants must show, in accordance with Article 21(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 874/2004 and Paragraph B11(d)(1) of the ADR Rules, that:
(a) the disputed domain name is identical with or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by the national law of a Member State and/or Community law;
and either that
(b) the domain name has been registered by the Respondent without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or
(c) the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.
...
2018-04-10 - Case Details
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
D2002-1064; section 4.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0").
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainants have provided evidence of their trademark registrations, domain names and use of their mark CREDIT MUTUEL. ...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainants have rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainants allege that the Respondent is not related in any way to the Complainants' business, does not act for the Complainants' business, and is not licensed by the Complainants' business. ...
2018-04-06 - Case Details
The Panel therefore concludes that consolidation of multiple respondents in this case is acceptable.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Trademark registrations of the MEIZU mark relevant to this case include, without limitation, the following:
- China Trademark Registration No. 3356226, registered on February 7, 2004;
- International Trademark Registration No. 903967, registered on April 19, 2006.
...When assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in issue, the Panel agrees that the Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) in a domain name is a standard registration requirement and as such the TLD should be disregarded under the confusing similarity test.
...
2018-05-09 - 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.
...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.
...
2018-06-04 - Case Details
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
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
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has shown to have trademark rights over the marks IN BIZ and INTESA SANPAOLO.
...The Panel therefore concludes that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy contains a non-exhaustive list of circumstances that may demonstrate when a respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the use of a domain name. ...
2019-01-08 - Case Details
The Panel gives the following reasons for its decision.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant proves that it has rights in the AMADEUS trademark based on different trademark registrations in the world. ...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the AMADEUS trademark.
The requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is met.
...
2019-05-24 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established rights in the trademark BELIZE OCEAN CLUB ADVENTURE RESORT based on the trademark registration cited under Section 4 above.
...Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has proven that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has established rights according to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2018-06-07 - Case Details
Complainant
(i) The Complainant essentially contends that the disputed domain name is identical, or at least highly confusingly similar, to the Trademarks. It argues that its trademark CREDIT MUTUEL is integrally reproduced in the disputed domain name and the mere addition of an hyphen and of the Top-Level Domain name “.tech” is not enough to avoid confusing similarity.
...These elements will be examined in turn below.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided evidence that it has rights in the Trademarks well before the Respondent registered the disputed domain name.
...
2018-11-05 - Case Details
Complainant
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s AGFA trade mark. The Complainant stated that “[b]y using AGFA in the domain name, the Respondent creates confusion as consumers may believe that this domain name refers to the Complainant”.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the AGFA trade mark as the inclusion of the descriptive word “medical” and a hyphen does not serve to remove the confusing similarity with the AGFA trade mark. ...
2019-08-08 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s INSTAGRAM trademark. The Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s INSTAGRAM trademark in its entirety with the addition “begen ihilesi”. ...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established rights in the trademark INSTAGRAM. The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. ...
2019-05-13 - 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.
...
2019-05-06 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s name, because it incorporates it entirely.
In relation to its contention for having unregistered trademark rights in its personal name, the Complainant points out that it has used its personal name in connection to his business for over six years not only in the regional, but also in the global context, and refers to the scale of its business, which employs about 1,000 employees working under the LUCKY LABS brand. ...Discussion and Findings
Pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a), the Complainant must prove each of the following to justify the transfer of the disputed domain name:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...
2018-12-28 - Case Details