The Complainant sells its watches under the Trade Mark in China only via authorised retailers.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. It comprises the Trade Mark in its entirety.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. ...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name, which contains the Trade Mark in its entirety, is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.
The Panel therefore holds that the Complaint fulfills the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2013-04-22 - Case Details
In relation to element (i) of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are either identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks İSTANBUL BORSASI, İSTANBUL MENKUL KIYMETLER BORSASI, BORSA İSTANBUL.
...As a result, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainants’ service marks.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has not provided evidence of, or even asserted the existence of, circumstances of the type specified in paragraphs 4(c)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Policy, being circumstances which demonstrate a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names.
...
2013-04-16 - Case Details
They are, with appropriate amendments, set out below for completeness.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant’s trademark is, and has been for many years, a well-known trademark in the field of cut crystal, jewelry and other luxury items. ...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant asserts that it has no connection or affiliation with the Respondent and has not given any licence or authority to the Respondent to use the trademark SWAROVSKI in the disputed domain name. ...
2013-04-12 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name 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 in bad faith and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has well-established, uncontroverted rights in the trademark SOFITEL in a number of territories including Australia. ...
2012-04-30 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well-established in decisions under the UDRP that gTLD indicators (i.e. “.com”, “.info”, “.net”, “.org”) are irrelevant to the consideration of confusing similarity between a trademark and a domain name. ...Accordingly, this Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ACCUTANE trademark, and that the Complainant has satisfied the test of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2012-07-19 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that it owns registered trade mark rights as noted above dating from February 12, 2008 and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its FROSTWIRE mark as it wholly incorporates the term “frostwire” and the addition of the term “review” does nothing to distinguish the disputed domain name from its mark.
...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant owns a combined word and device mark registration for its FROSTWIRE mark in the US under registration number 3381297 dating from February, 12, 2008.
...
2012-06-18 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its MASTERCARD and MASTERCARD INCONTROL trademarks. It stresses the fact that the litigious domain name entirely comprises the trademarks “MASTERCARD” and “MASTERCARD INCONTROL”.
...The disputed domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;
B. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
C. ...
2012-05-04 - Case Details
The Respondent has generated income by hosting these sponsored links on the Website.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name comprises and is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.
No Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and does not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
...Discussion and Findings
The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 6(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 predate the date of registration of the disputed domain name by several years.
...
2012-06-08 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent has not made any substantive response to the Complaint and has not contested any of the Complainant’s evidence or submissions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has clearly demonstrated and substantiated its rights in the name and trademark BUDGET DIRECT. ...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a name and trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use the name and trademark BIUDGET DIRECT in the disputed domain name. ...
2012-07-10 - Case Details
The Panel notes also that the content of the website at the disputed domain name is in English; therefore, the Respondent should be familiar with the English language.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel agrees with the Complainant here. The Complainant has trademark rights in SIEMENS and “sıemens” is phonetically and visually almost identical to the Complainant’s trademark. ...Therefore, Internet users will have the false impression that the domain name is an official domain name of the Complainant.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark SIEMENS. Therefore, the Panel finds that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is met.
...
2013-10-09 - Case Details
Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions, and is in default.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has shown to the satisfaction of the Panel that it has rights in the registered mark CREDIT MUTUEL. ...In conclusion, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant`s CREDIT MUTUEL mark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel notes that Respondent offers no explanation for the fact that the disputed domain name is composed of two well known French marks. ...
2013-09-30 - Case Details
The Panel concludes the Center discharges its obligations under paragraph 2(a) of the Rules.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant’s mark XENICAL is registered on behalf of the Complainant in the United States Patent and Trademark Office as of July 18, 1995 under Registration No. 1,906,281. ...D2004-0589, “no good faith can be assumed in Respondent’s conduct, in view of the fact that the Domain Name is confusingly similar with Complainant’s trademark and is used in connection with the promotion and sale of competing products”.
...
2012-10-04 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In order to succeed under the first element of the Policy, the Complainant must demonstrate both its rights in the relevant trademark, and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to said trademark.
...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MUNDOANUNCIO trademark, and that the Complainant has established the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2012-09-20 - Case Details
It contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered trademark rights and that, terms like “advisors”, “financial” and “investments” are commonly and descriptively used in the financial advisory market are descriptive.
3. ...It follows that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the registered trademarks over which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant succeeds in this element.
...
2012-09-05 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
For the Complaint to succeed in this proceeding, under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, it must prove 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 Panel considers that the disputed domain name and the trademark SORIANA in which the Complainant has rights are confusingly similar to the extent of causing Internet user confusion. ...
2013-01-15 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There is no dispute that Complainant holds longstanding rights in the mark GUDRUN SJODEN (either with the accent marks or without) through registration and through use, some of which is conducted on the Internet with a website whose domain name does not include the accent marks. ...There are many prior decisions under the Policy holding that a “wwwmark.com” domain name is held to be confusingly similar to the mark in question. See, e.g., Pig Improvement Company, Inc. v. Platinum Net, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2012-11-23 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the 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 disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...The Panel determines that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark AIDA. The mere attachment of a generic term to a protected mark does not defeat confusing similarity.
...
2012-11-20 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the SOFTLAYER trade mark registrations owned by the Complainant’s wholly-owned subsidiary company, Softlayer; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The trade mark upon which the Complainant relies is SOFTLAYER, a trade mark which is registered in the United States of America and elsewhere. ...
2014-11-17 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a complainant must assert and prove each of the following:
(i) the domain name registered by the respondent 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 registered by the respondent has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established that it has rights to word/design trademark registrations for ACCOR and ACCOR HOTELS.
...
2014-11-14 - Case Details
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its mark in the sense of the Policy, citing UDRP precedent to support its position.
...Its sole aim was related to its business activities.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is clear to the Panel that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar (in the sense of the Policy) to the Complainant's mark, because it contains the mark and merely adds the common word "boutique" (which relates to the Complainant's area of activity) to form the disputed domain name. ...
2014-11-05 - Case Details