Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered trademark USA CASH SERVICES and that Respondent uses the disputed domain name in connection with a website that offers competing services.
...Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances, any one of which, if proved by the Respondent, would demonstrate the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel must conclude that the Complaint fails because the Complainant has not demonstrated that it has rights in a protectable trademark. ...
2005-04-01 - Case Details
Identical or Confusingly Similar: ALF claims that the domain name is identical to its registered service mark.
2. Rights or Legitimate Interests: ALF claims that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the mark.
3. ...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s
contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In terms of intellectual property rights, the Panel finds that Complainant ALF has proven its legal rights to the AMERICAN LUBEFAST service mark through use in commerce and state registration. ...
2004-08-03 - Case Details
Discussion
Our inquiry focuses on three issues: (1) are the Domain Names confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; (2) does Respondent have right or legitimate interest in the Domain Names; and (3) have the Domain Names been registered and used in bad faith? ...The only difference between the Domain Names and Complainant’s mark is the addition of the suffixes ".com" ".net" and ".org". Therefore, the Domain Names are all confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
B. Legitimate Interest
There is no evidence in the record that Respondent has ever been commonly known by any of the Domain Names. ...
2002-02-14 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trade mark "ALBACOM".
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. ...However, the facts speak for themselves and it is necessary in this case for the Panel to draw any specific inferences, save that where there is doubt, the Panel will resolve the doubt in favour of the Complainant.
6.1 Identical or Confusingly Similar
The trade mark registration No. 716943 has been filed on April 20, 1995 and has been assigned to Albacom S.p.A. ...
2002-03-22 - Case Details
Registration 1,932,664 and that the disputed
domain name is confusingly similar to such trademark.
The Complainant contends
further that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to
the domain name and that the domain name was registered and is being used in
bad faith.
...After
comparing the disputed domain name with the whole of the registered composite
mark, the Panel also finds that the two are not confusingly similar. The mere
appearances of "baker blanket" among the dozens of words which are
included in the composite mark along with multiple design features does not
justify a contrary conclusion.
...
2001-07-03 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant must prove each of the following:
- The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the trade mark; and
- The Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the Domain Name; and
- The Domain Name has been registered and are being used in bad faith.
...Accordingly it is found that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the name/mark "Rip Torn" and that the Complainant makes out its case on this ground.
...
2001-10-15 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant relies on its registered trade-marks and common law rights and says that the subject domain name is identical to or confusingly similar to its rights. It notes that the Respondent has admitted that he has nothing to do with the Complainant and contends that the Respondent has no legitimate interest in the subject domain name.
...The resolution of this dispute takes place in the context of a consideration of the requirements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided information that establishes that it has rights to the name and mark "Guinness". ...
2001-02-06 - Case Details
The Parties’ Contentions
Clerical Medical contend that the domain name in question is identical or confusingly similar to its trade mark or trading name; that CMC has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name; and that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...The first question to be considered is whether the domain name clericalmedical.com is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Clerical Medical has rights.
The Panel quite clearly finds that this limb of the test is satisfied. ...
2000-12-04 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
The Complainants contend: that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to SAMUEL ADAMS Marks, to which it has rights; 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.
...In accordance with Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed in this UDRP proceeding, the Complainants must prove (A) that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which they have rights, and, (B) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, and (C) that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. ...
2005-01-13 - Case Details
i) The Respondents
domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service
mark in which the Complainant has rights.
As referred to above
the Complainant has provided evidence of its trade mark and service mark
rights in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. ...It follows that the
Respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
marks. For these reasons the Panel finds that the Complainant has succeeded
in proving paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2001-05-28 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the
Policy requires that the Complainant must prove each of the following:
- The domain
name is identical or confusingly similar to the trade mark; and
- The Respondent
has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name;
and
- The domain name
has been registered and are being used in bad faith.
...Accordingly, it is
found that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade
mark JMC.
No Right or Legitimate
Interest
The Complainant accepts
that the Respondent is a travel agent and that it may have sold JMC holidays
as a travel agent and would indeed be entitled to so. ...
2001-05-29 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
5.1 Complainant
The Complainant alleges that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademarks Rocher and Ferrero Rocher (Complaint, page 3). It points out that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name and that it does not trade under the name Ferrero Rocher (Complaint, page 4 f.).
...i) Identity or confusing similarity
The domain name "ferrerorocher.com" is not only confusingly similar as claimed by Complainant (Complaint, page 3), but identical to various trademarks registered by Complainant all over the world (see Exhibits 1 to 12). ...
2001-03-29 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
Complainants contend that the domain names in issue are vitually identical to and/or confusingly similar to Complainants' "Canon" trademark and trade name and to the "Astro Canon" trade name. ...Discussion and Findings
In order to be entitled to relief under the applicable Policy, Complainants must establish that the domain names in issue are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainants have rights. The Panel determines that the domain names at issue -- usacanon.com; astrocanon.com; canonastro.com; and canoncopymachines.com -- are confusingly similar to the "Canon" mark and trade name and to the "Astro Canon" trade name. ...
2000-10-19 - Case Details
In addition, Respondent contends that Paragraph 4 (a) (i) of the Policy (domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights) does not apply, as the respective domain is already owned by Complainant and all the website contents reflect Complainant's logos and trademarks. ...Identical or Confusingly Similar Domain Name
The domain name at issue is "robotcock.com". The relevant part of this Domain Name "Robotcock" is identical with the trademark registrations of the word "Robotcock" held by Complainant.
...
2000-10-16 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy") lists three elements that the Complainant must prove to merit a finding that the domain name of the Respondent be transferred to the Complainant:
1) The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark ("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.
1) Identity or confusing similarity with a mark in which the Complainant has rights
The domain name is clearly confusingly similar to the registered trademark "ExecuJet" in which the Complainant has rights in Switzerland (the generic top level domain indicator ".com", cannot be taken into consideration when judging identity or confusing similarity). It is also confusingly similar to the registration ExecuJet & device in South Africa, of which the dominating part is the word ExecuJet. ...
2002-10-23 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
(i) Complainant
The Complainant alleges that the domain name is confusingly similar to Vanguard's registered mark since the domain name incorporates a common misspelling of the term "vanguard". ...Further more, the Administrative Panel has no doubt that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the aforementioned trademark "Vanguard" in the sense of Article (a) (i) of the Policy.
...
2002-08-26 - Case Details
The Respondent’s Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade or service mark in which Complainants have 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 used in bad faith.
i. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It appears that Complainants only clearly registered their marks 3 years after the Domain Name was registered by Respondent. ...
2002-11-27 - Case Details
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy
sets out three illustrative circumstances that, if proved, constitute evidence
of a right or legitimate interest as described in paragraph 4(a)(ii) referred
to above.
Domain Names Identical
or Confusingly Similar
It is clear from the evidence
that the Complainant has devised and registered the trademark BANANAS IN PYJAMAS
in Australia, Japan and the United States of America and that such registrations
pre-date the registration of the Domain Names. ...In view of the above it is
found that the Registered Trademarks are trademarks in which the Complainant
has rights and that the Domain Names are confusingly similar if not identical
thereto.
No Right or Legitimate
Interest
Given what seems on the
evidence to be the highly distinctive nature of the Registered Trademarks, a
presumption arises that the Complainant alone has rights in these trademarks
and certainly in the classes of interest to it. ...
2001-07-09 - Case Details
See 15 U.S.C. §1055.
B. The Domain Names are Confusingly Similar to The Marks In Which Complainant
Has Rights
The second level domain names registered by Respondent are identical to Complainant’s
marks. ...Specifically, Complainant has shown rights in trademarks and service
marks, has shown that the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar
to the trademarks and service marks in which Complainant has rights, that Respondent
has no rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Names, and that Respondent
registered the Domain Names in bad faith and is using them in bad faith. ...
2001-05-18 - Case Details
The Complainant must satisfy 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 such 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
As the disputed domain names are not identical to a trademark of Complainant, the question is whether there is a confusing similarity between the domain names and the trademark.
...
2003-05-23 - Case Details