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
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
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
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
Accordingly, this Panel will proceed to a decision.
7. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, a complainant must show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights. ...To satisfy paragraph 4(a)(i), the disputed domain name must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. Here, the disputed domain consists of (i) Complainant’s registered NUVO mark and (ii) the generic Top-Level-Domain (“gTLD”) suffix “.com”. ...
2014-10-07 - 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 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
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 and is therefore in default.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name incorporates the ERDF and LINKY trademarks in their entirety. ...Therefore, the Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to the ERDF and LINKY trademarks and, as a result, finds that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is met.
...
2015-02-25 - 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
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
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
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
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 demonstrated that it owns a French word mark registration for FRANCE BILLET registered under number 94530821 on July 25, 1994. ...As a result the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s FRANCE BILLET mark and the Complaint succeeds under the first element of the Policy.
...
2015-11-20 - Case Details
The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant's trademark SAP in its entirety and is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks. The addition of the suffix "teq" does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant's SAP trademarks. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the holder of numerous trademark registrations for SAP worldwide, inter alia, the Indian Trademark Registrations No. 1238969 and 576754, the Community Trade Mark Registration No. 001270693 and the US trademark registration No. 73779534. ...
2015-05-28 - Case Details
Complainants
The Complainants contend principally that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainants have 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.
...Turning to the merits, in order to prevail, the Complainants must satisfy each of the three elements under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights, namely, CME.
...
2015-06-25 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark and identical to Facebook Messenger, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...The Panel also finds that the Complainant has unregistered trademark rights in FACEBOOK MESSENGER for purposes of the Policy.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark and identical to the Complainant’s unregistered FACEBOOK MESSENGER mark.
...
2015-10-05 - Case Details