- The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's service mark. Thus, Respondent’s possession of the disputed domain name completely precludes Complainant from using its registered mark in the global computer network
- Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name. ...Identical or Confusingly Similar
In accordance with Respondent's concession on this point, the Panel finds that Complainant owns a valid registration of the service mark, "Windsor", with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (i.e., U.S. ...
2002-11-21 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
5.1 Complainant contends that Respondent has registered a domain name which is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark registered and used by Complainant, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name at issue, and that Respondent has registered and is using the domain name at issue in bad faith.
5.2 Respondent contends that its use of the term "workamper" predates Complainant's alleged coining of the term, and that Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in respect of the domain name and that Respondent is using the domain name at issue in good faith.
6. Discussion and Findings
6.1 Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel as to the principles the Panel is to use in determining the dispute: "A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules, and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
6.2 Since both the Complainant and Respondent are domiciled in the United States, and since United States’ courts have recent experience with similar disputes, to the extent that it would assist the Panel in determining whether the Complainant has met its burden as established by Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Panel shall look to rules and principles of law set out in decisions of the courts of the United States.
6.3 Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following:
1) that 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,
2) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and,
3) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
6.4 The Panel finds that the domain name at issue is identical or confusingly similar to the mark in which the Complainant claims rights. ...
2001-06-12 - Case Details
Applicable Rules
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that Complainant, to obtain the requested remedy, must prove each of the following:
(i) that the domain name in issue is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark, and
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name, and
(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
6. ...Harrod’s Closet, WIPO
Case No. D2001-1027.
b. Identical or confusingly similar
The Domain Name consists of a combination of the word "harrods" (identical to the HARRODS Mark, in which the Complainant holds rights), and the suffix ".tv". ...
2002-01-22 - Case Details
Complainant
The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s NASDAQ trademark. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, which he registered and is using in bad faith.
...The Panel finds each of the disputed domain names to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s NASDAQ mark.
The Complainant has established this element of its case.
...
2002-07-09 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove that each of the following elements is present:
(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 has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Accordingly, the Panel finds that:
(1) Identical or Confusing Similar
The dominant part of the Domain Name , being “prada”, is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s famous trademark PRADA registered and used by the Complainant throughout the world as evidenced by the list of registered PRADA trademarks attached to the Complaint (see, Annex 1) The Complainant specifically points out, in paragraph 9(a) of the Complaint, that a domain name consisting of a combination of “www” and “.com” without a dot between them, such as the Domain Name in issue, may cause confusion over the Internet. ...
2005-02-01 - Case Details
- Complainants has invested substantial financial resources that include time, labor, skill and expenses developing, advertising and promoting the Houston Rockets the New Jersey Nets trademarks to obtain the fame and prestige that these trademarks holds today.
- The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks.
- Respondent has not been authorized to register or use the domain name for any legitimate purpose and thus has no rights or interests in it...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainants have demonstrated their rights in the domain name as seen from the quotes (from the Complaint) extracted below.
...
2005-01-20 - Case Details
The grounds for the Complaint are:
(1) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark SCANOMAT and Complainant’s company name.
(2) Complainant states that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name as provided in Paragraph 4(a)(ii) in connection with Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy.
...Trademark rights
Complainant has provided sufficient evidence of its rights to the trademark SCANOMAT.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name is identical to Complainant’s well-known trademark SCANOMAT. ...
2005-01-13 - Case Details
b) The Complaint contends that the disputed domain name is virtually identical to and confusingly similar to a common law mark in which the Complainant has rights.
(c) The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name.
...The threshold inquiry is first, whether the Complainant has rights in a relevant trademark, and secondly, whether the domain name is the same as, or is confusingly similar to the first mark. It is not an essential for the Complainant to show a registered trademark for certain named services. ...
2004-07-05 - Case Details
All that the complainant is required to do under this procedure is to demonstrate that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to trade or service marks owned and used by the complainant and in respect of which the complainant has rights. ...Decision
In the light of the foregoing the panel decides that although the Domain Name in question is potentially confusingly similar to the trade and service marks of Easyjet, Mr. Holt appears to have a legitimate interest in the Domain Name, and that there is no evidence that it was registered or is being used in bad faith.
...
2000-08-24 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the domain name "step2.com" is confusingly similar to Complainant’s previously existed registered trademarks.
The Panel next considers the issue of whether the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. ...Decision
For these reasons, the Panel decides that the "step2.com" domain name in dispute is confusingly similar to marks in which the Complainant has rights, and that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name, and that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2000-06-28 - Case Details
The domain names "singaporeairlines.org", "singaporeair.net" and "singaporeair.org" are obviously identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks, whether registered or common law. The fact that in two of them the letters "lines" are omitted does not diminish the fact that the marks refer clearly to an airline with a close connection with Singapore – in fact the universally-known Singapore Airlines.
...Decision
For the foregoing reasons, the Panel decides:
(a) that the domain names registered by the Respondent are identical or confusingly similar to the trademark to which the Complainant has rights;
(b) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names; and
(c) the Respondent’s domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
...
2000-09-11 - Case Details
The domain name "singaporeairlines.com" is obviously identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. The Panel so decides. The addition of the ".com" is of no importance in arriving at this conclusion.
...Decision
For the foregoing reasons, the Panel decides:
(a) that the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark to which the Complainant has rights;
(b) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(c) the Respondent’s domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2000-09-11 - Case Details
i) The Respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Panel accepts the evidence of the Complainant to the following effect:
(a) That it has a registered trademark dated May 14, 1997, for the mark "Just Rentals Buy As You View".
...The Panel is therefore prepared to accept that the domain name is confusingly similar to the existing Complainant’s trade mark registration, the mark applied for in the application and the underlying common law trade mark rights which have existed since 1997.
...
2000-11-03 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), a complainant must prove that the
domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service
mark in which the complainant has rights.
In line with such provision, the Complainant must prove two aspects, i.e. it
enjoys the trademark rights; and, the disputed domain name is identical with
or confusingly similar to its trademark or service mark.
It is not disputable that the Complainant has the trademark registrations over
“日立” in many countries and has been using the mark “日立” extensively and consistently
for many years. ...
2005-08-12 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant contends that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Trademark, as the Domain Names both prominently figure the element EPSON. EPSON is a well-known, made-up term and forms the first, dominant, most significant and distinctive element of each of the Domain Names. ...SC Technova Invest SRL,
WIPO Case No. DRO2009-0001).
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that Complainant has sufficiently demonstrated that Seiko Epson Corporation, for and on whose behalf it is acting, has rights in the Trademark. ...
2010-03-04 - Case Details
It makes a submission of reverse domain name hijacking.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel has considered the evidence of the Complainant and finds that the Complainant on the evidence has registered trade marks for the mark MONARCH. ...Therefore, in the Panel’s view the domain name in dispute is confusingly similar to the mark MONARCH in which the Complainant has rights. Accordingly, the Panel finds for the Complainant in respect of this element.
...
2008-02-13 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark PORT AVENTURA since: (i) the disputed domain name is composed of the distinctive terms “port aventura” and the generic words “theme” and “park”; and (ii) the words “theme” and “park” are descriptive of the Complainant’s business.
...Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove all three of the following elements to be entitled to the relief sought: (i) that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and (iii) that the Respondent’s domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
...
2008-04-10 - Case Details
In particular, the Complainants claim that the disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to their trademark CIC and identical to their trademark and registered domain name CIC SECURITIES.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name registered is . The Complainants have rights in trademarks for the denominations CIC and CIC SECURITIES. ...
2007-11-19 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The FITLINE Mark is owned by the Complainant and precedes the registration of the disputed domain names by several years. ...In the circumstances, this Panel is of the view that the disputed domain names are not distinguishable from but are confusingly similar to the FITLINE Mark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has submitted that the Respondent has not used the disputed domain names in connection with the bona fide offering of goods or services and has never been commonly known by the disputed domain names. ...
2008-12-22 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The FITLINE Mark is owned by the Complainant and precedes the registration of the disputed domain name by several years. ...In the circumstances, this Panel is of the view that the disputed domain name is not distinguishable from but is confusingly similar to the FITLINE Mark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has submitted that the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of goods or services and has never been commonly known by the disputed domain name. ...
2008-12-22 - Case Details