Taking into account all the relevant circumstances, the Panel determines that the language of proceeding be
English.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Discussion and Findings
A. Language of Proceeding
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-08-06 - Case Details
Thank you”.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-07-10 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the requirement of article 2.1(a) of the Regulations.
...Ye Li
Case No. DNL2024-0021
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith...
2024-06-13 - Case Details
Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the
language of the proceeding shall be English.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-07-05 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Since the Complainant has no registered trademark rights, it must establish as a preliminary matter that it
has obtained common law rights, in the nature of unregistered trademark rights, in the name or mark upon
which it relies.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-07-04 - 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
The communication did, however, effectively show receipt by the Respondent of the Complaint.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has produced documentary evidence to the effect that it has rights in the trademark AMERICAN HEALTH NETWORK. ...On the evidence it is clear that the Respondent has registered a domain name effectively identical and thereby confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known trademark and is using it as an Internet website. The website operates and appears to compete, directly or indirectly, in the Complainant’s field of the supply of medical information, goods and services. ...
2007-03-15 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant claims to be entitled to common law trademark rights in the name First Magnus Financial due to its regular usage as a business name since 1996 across all fifty states of the United States of America, extensive advertising and large revenues from the name.
...The domain name in issue reproduces the trademark without the gaps between the words and with just the addition of the suffix “.com”. It is clearly confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is not called ‘First Magnus Financial’ and does not appear to trade under that name. ...
2007-01-05 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first part of the disputed domain name is identical to the famous trademark of the Third Complainant. ...It is unnecessary for the Panel to consider whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the individual trademarks for SONY and ERICSSON owned by the Third and Second Complainants respectively.
...
2006-11-14 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the following three elements are present:
(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark; 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.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant's highly distinctive and well-known TGV Marks in which the Complainant has rights. ...
2009-01-09 - 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
Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, 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; 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.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name consist of Complainant's STRELLSON mark with the addition of the generic word “limited” which actually reflects the English version of Complainant's corporate name. ...
2009-03-11 - Case Details
The intituling has been amended to reflect solely the registrant as the Respondent.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has submitted documentary evidence satisfactory to the Panel of its ownership of and rights in the European trademark TRACKID, granted on September 8, 2006.
The Complainant must prove that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark. The gTLD directory “.com” may be disregarded as an inevitable part of a domain name. ...
2009-01-22 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the Respondent is required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding in the event that a third party (a “complainant”) asserts to the applicable provider, in compliance with the Rules, that:
(i) the Respondent's 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 the domain name; and
(iii) the Respondent's domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...The dispute is properly within the scope of the Policy and the Panel has jurisdiction to decide the dispute.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is required to prove that it has rights in a trademark, and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark.
...
2009-01-20 - Case Details
For these reasons, HILL-ROM is a very well-known trademark.
The trademark HILL-ROM is confusingly similar to the domain name .
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. ...Discussion and Findings
To qualify for cancellation or transfer, the Complainant must prove each element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, namely:
(i) The disputed 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 the
domain name; and
(iii) The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2006-08-22 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that (A) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark PARTYPOKER in which it has rights; it points out in this connection that the domain name of the Respondent incorporates its trademark in its entirety and that the addition of the word “play” does not sufficiently distinguish the domain name from its mark which is well-known; (B) the Respondent has no rights ore legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; (C) the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...In conclusion the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark PARTYPOKER of the Complainant.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
PARTYPOKER cannot be considered to be a descriptive word, in which the Respondent might have a legitimate user-interest. ...
2006-06-30 - 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
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