Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided documentary evidence of its trademark rights in OSRAM. The Panel is also persuaded by the evidence submitted that OSRAM is a well-known mark.
As to whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the OSRAM mark, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied its burden of showing that it is. ...
2013-10-16 - Case Details
General
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely that:
(i) The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark 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 was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Absent the “.com” top level domain identifier, which the Panel may ignore for the purposes of assessing identity and confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Domain Name comprises the words, “limited” and “coupon”. ...
2013-08-30 - Case Details
Possibly as a consequence to communications about possible infringements from the Complainant’s representative with the service provider hosting the website corresponding to the disputed domain name, the Respondent changed hosting provider.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to trademarks in which the Complainant has rights. It wholly incorporates the trademark CLARISONIC and the added element is non-distinctive, descriptive or generic. ...The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has made out the first limb of the Policy and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and there has been no rebuttal by the Respondent. ...
2013-08-26 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to trademarks and service marks in which it claims to have rights. Complainant further claims 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. ...
2014-06-10 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
On the basis of the general background findings of fact set out above and the more particular findings and rulings set out below, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established trade mark rights in CLEARTRIP and has successfully made out its case for transfer of the disputed domain name.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In assessing the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s trade mark CLEARTRIP, which has been wholly incorporated in the disputed domain, the Panel accepts the Complainant’s contention that the ccTLD “.co” and the letter “s” may be disregarded as of minimal or no account in accordance with previous approaches:
See, e.g., the following decisions;
- Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v. ...To avoid any doubt even if it were not regarded as identical, the Panel is of the view that the disputed domain name is unquestionably confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CLEARTRIP trade mark.
The Panel therefore considers that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights, in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2014-02-21 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered trademark ASHLEY MADISON. It is made up of the Complainant's trademark ASHLEY MADISON to which the geographical indicator "jpn" has been added.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered trademark.
The first element of the UDRP is made out.
...
2015-01-21 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant does not own registered trade mark rights for its MOM & ME trade mark but has trade mark applications for a stylized logo mark including the MOM & ME word mark pending since 2008.
...Although the disputed domain name, which includes the word "and" is not identical to the Complainant's mark, which features an ampersand instead, it is certainly confusingly similar to it.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complaint succeeds under the first element of the Policy.
...
2015-01-20 - Case Details
These elements are that:
(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.
Each of the aforesaid three elements must be proved by a complainant to warrant relief.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has alleged rights in the service mark CAM GIRL MANSION. As evidence in support of service mark ownership, Complainant referred to some public discussions in April 2011, but provided no evidence that reflects such discussions. ...
2013-12-12 - 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 demonstrated that it owns registered trade mark rights in GENPACT in various countries including in particular in the USA under registration No.78642576 dating from 2005.
...The Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s GENPACT mark and that the Complainant succeeds under the first element of the Policy.
...
2013-12-05 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its CAROLINA CARPORTS trademark, in that it consists merely of its CAROLINA CARPORTS trademark, together with the generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) indicator, “.com”.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To succeed under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the complainant must first demonstrate that it has rights in the trademark which it relies upon. ...
2014-04-04 - Case Details
The Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s name with only the extension “.com” added. As such it is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark in which he has rights.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. ...Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that:
(1) The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(2) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(3) The Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2014-10-22 - Case Details
Secondly, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trade name and the SOLVAY trademarks. In its view, the Complainant's trade name and the SOLVAY trademarks enjoy a high degree of reputation in the chemical sector and are broadly used all around the world. ...A complaint may only succeed in these Policy proceedings if the above criteria are met simultaneously.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant holds worldwide trademark registrations for SOLVAY. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant's trademark in its entirety without any other word or letter. ...
2014-10-20 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its famous MARLBORO trade marks as it incorporates the word MARLBORO in its entirety. ...Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion And Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has satisfied the requirement of establishing that it has trademark rights in MARLBORO. ...
2014-08-26 - Case Details
The Panel agrees fully with the Complainant’s arguments and accordingly does not consider it necessary to write a long decision.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is made up of the Complainant’s registered trademark NAVER LINE and the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) “.com”. Other than the hyphen, it is identical to the Complainant’s registered trademark. In any event, it is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark.
The first element of the Policy is made out.
...
2014-08-26 - Case Details
It maintains that the Domain Name is clearly confusingly similar to the Complainant’s name and marks in that it comprises the term “Saks Fifth Avenue” and the word “hours” in combination.
...Namely, the Complainant must prove that:
(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (paragraph 4(a)(i)); and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name (paragraph 4(a)(ii)); and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (paragraph 4(a)(iii)).
...
2014-09-16 - Case Details
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). ...The disputed domain name is more than confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark TENIS MANIA. In fact, said domain name is a complete reproduction of the trademark TENIS MANIA, owned by the Complainant.
...
2014-09-08 - Case Details
The Complainant is of the opinion that the disputed domain name is identical or at least confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark GARANTI CAZ YESILI.
Furthermore, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and must have registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...It is further noted that the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”) and, where appropriate, will decide consistent with the WIPO Overview 2.0.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the GARANTI CAZ YESILI trademark of the Complainant.
...
2014-05-05 - Case Details
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the 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) the disputed domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.
...Since the gTLD designation may be disregarded for the purpose of this proceeding, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Panel therefore finds that the conditions in paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy are therefore fulfilled.
...
2014-07-11 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the Trademarks as the dominant part of the Domain Names is "Coach" while the additions "outlet" and "shoes" are descriptive. ...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has shown that it has rights in the Trademarks. The element "Coach" which is identical to (the word element in) the Trademarks is to be considered the dominant part of the Domain Names. ...
2014-08-21 - 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 clearly established that it has rights in the SERCO Trademark registered in many geographical areas (including in the United States of America where the Respondent resides). ...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the SERCO Trademark of the Complainant.
The first criterion of the Policy has been met.
...
2015-07-30 - Case Details