The Domain Names registered by Respondent are 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 Domain Name; and
C. The Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant holds several word and word/device trademarks LEGO which are registered, among other things, for toys in class 28, in particular in the United States. ...
2012-03-07 - 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 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
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
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
The Respondent, having failed to respond in the present proceeding, is in default, and in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, “the panel shall draw such inferences […] as it considers appropriate”.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.4. The Complainant has exclusive rights in the trademark STONE ISLAND and has provided evidence of this fact.
6.5. ...Previous UDRP Panels have held that “where a domain name incorporates Complainant’s registered mark, this is sufficient to establish that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy.” See Kabushiki Kaisha Hitachi Seisakusho v. Arthur Wrangle,
WIPO Case No. ...
2014-12-18 - 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
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
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
From a branding perspective, Complainant has operated predominantly through its famous trademarks (such as MARLBORO) over the years. ...Given the fact that the dominant portion of each Domain Name is the PHILIP MORRIS mark, and the facts that the mark is closely associated with cigarettes and "ecig" is a common new term for electronic or vapor cigarettes, the Panel finds without hesitation that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
The Panel therefore concludes that Policy paragraph 4(a)(i) has been established.
...
2014-12-01 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its ZANUSSI mark, from which it differs only in the addition of the generic word "maintenance" and the generic Top Level Domain suffix. ...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 registered and unregistered rights in the mark ZANUSSI. ...
2015-07-15 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ROCKEFELLER trademark, and that the Respondent has no legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. ...Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has not provided any evidence of circumstances to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
...
2015-06-26 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove: (i) that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which it has rights; (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. ...On this basis, the Panel considers that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s AUDI mark. There can be no doubt that many Internet users would assume that the Domain Name refers to the Complainant, so that the Complainant has a sufficient interest in it.
...
2015-02-12 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that it has unregistered rights in the ONLINEMBA mark by virtue of its use of the mark since 2010 as a domain name and in connection with the Complainant's Website.
...The Panel accordingly finds that the Complainant has failed to establish that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
As the Complainant has failed to satisfy paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Panel does not need to consider the second requirement under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
...
2015-09-23 - Case Details
Summarizing its legal contentions, Complainant alleges that (1) the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark, (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and (3) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, all in violation of the Policy. ...Michael Robertson,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0009).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel agrees with Complainant that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant's BHP BILLITON trademark.
...
2015-09-16 - 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 its SPIGEN mark under United States trade mark registration number 4248155 and under trade mark registration number 86103698. ...As a result, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark.
As a result the Complaint succeeds under the first element of the Policy.
...
2015-08-04 - 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
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