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). ...Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant owns the mark ACCENTURE and its global website is under the domain name .
...
2016-05-13 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the three requirements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are met:
1. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s TNT trademark. The Complainant argues that the mark TNT is a well-known mark in Turkey, registered before the Turkish Patent office. ...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). ...
2016-05-03 - Case Details
Therefore, the proceedings have been rightfully instituted against the Respondent and a decision to transfer the Domain Names, if such were given, can be implemented by the Registrar.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Trade Marks consist of the element "Intesa Sanpaolo" which is incorporated in its entirety in the Domain Names. ...Therefore, the Panel finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Trade Marks.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names (WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 2.1). ...
2016-04-22 - Case Details
The Complainant must prove in this administrative proceeding that each of the aforesaid three elements is present so as to have the disputed domain name transferred to it, according to paragraph 4(i) of the Policy.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established its rights in the VERIZON trademark, duly registered inter alia in the United Kingdom and in the United States of America. ...D2000-0651: "The Panel takes the view that the mark 'Hang Sent' because of its wide use and promotion internationally has become so well known and 'famous' that any third party seeking to register and deal in a confusingly similar domain name such as that in dispute must create a presumption of bad faith.").
Under these circumstances and absent evidence to the contrary, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name.
...
2016-07-08 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has, though the provision of the details of its registered trademarks, as set out above, established that it has rights in 1XBET.
When considering whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark, the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) component of the domain name (that is “.bid” in the case of the disputed domain name) is disregarded as it is a technical requirement of registration.
...
2018-03-22 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its prior registered DECATHLON trade mark, which is well-known worldwide. The addition of the descriptive term “mall” does not add distinctiveness to the Domain Name.
...Therefore, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s DECATHLON trade mark. Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied the first element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2018-02-05 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent sent two emails, detailed above in the Procedural History, proposing to move the disputed domain name to another registrar, but did not submit a formal response.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name incorporates the whole of the Complainant’s registered word trademark RITALIN, and adds the word “pharma”, which is commonly recognized as an abbreviation of either “pharmacy” or “pharmaceutical”. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is not a licensee of, or otherwise affiliated with, the Complainant, and has not been authorized by the Complainant to use its RITALIN trademark. ...
2018-05-02 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In light of the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the FB trademark. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
The requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is thus fulfilled.
...
2018-02-28 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar or identical to the Trade Mark, 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.
...Although not ultimately determinative given the evidence put before the Panel by both parties, the Panel considers it somewhat curious that the Complainant chose not to inform the Panel of the history of the relationship between the parties, including the fact the Respondent was previously a distributor of the Complainant’s products under the Trade Mark in China.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark acquired through use and registration.
...
2017-10-20 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
By virtue of the trademark registrations submitted in the evidence, the Complainant clearly has rights in the RICK OWENS trademark. ...The Panel accordingly finds the Disputed Domain Name to be confusingly similar to the RICK OWENS trademark and holds that the first limb of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is established.
...
2017-12-04 - Case Details
(1) The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark.
The disputed domain name is highly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and trade name EQUINOR due to the fact that EQUINOR is the principal component of the disputed domain name, completed by a hyphen and a suffix “no”. ...In the following, the Panel will discuss in consecutive order, if each of these requirements are met here.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The test for identity or confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy demands a direct comparison between the Complainant’s mark and the textual string of the disputed domain name which is claimed to affect the Complainant.
...
2019-04-25 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements:
(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 the Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant must demonstrate that it has rights in a trademark or a service mark and, if so, the domain name must be shown to be identical or confusingly similar to that mark.
...
2019-01-08 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) in the disputed domain name, in this case “.com”, should be disregarded. ...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 Panel is satisfied that the Complainant is the holder of the registered trademark AUSPOST. ...
2019-03-21 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) in the disputed domain name, in this case “.com”, should be disregarded. ...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 Panel is satisfied that the Complainant is the holder of the registered trademark AUSPOST. ...
2019-03-21 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...In all the circumstances, the Panel therefore determines that it will not admit the Parties’ supplemental submissions.
6.2 Substantive Elements of Policy
The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(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.
...
2019-01-14 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s TMALL trademarks, as it incorporates the TMALL mark in its entirety. ...However, references to the Respondent shall include any actions by the beneficial holder regarding the Domain Name.
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element of a UDRP complaint “functions primarily as a standing requirement” and entails “a straightforward comparison between the complainant’s trademark and the domain name”. ...
2021-06-28 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that it has the requisite rights in its registered trademark INSTAGRAM and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) attaching to the disputed domain name is not relevant to the determination of confusing similarity. ...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 Panel is satisfied by the evidence presented that the Complainant has the requisite rights in the trademark INSTAGRAM. ...
2021-01-19 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name incorporates Complainant’s mark ZIPRECRUITER in its entirety. This is sufficient to establish confusing similarity (Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...D2002-0122).
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the ZIPRECRUITER mark of Complainant.
Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2020-12-14 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name incorporates Complainant’s mark BENEFITFOCUS in its entirety. This is sufficient to establish confusing similarity (Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...D2002-0122).
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the BENEFITFOCUS mark of Complainant.
Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2020-05-01 - Case Details
Complainant
5.1 The Complainant refers to its business and trade marks and refers to a number of previous UDRP cases in which it has been involved in which it is said the fame and reputation of its MICHELIN mark was recognised. It contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its trade mark.
5.2 The Complainant refers to the way in which the Domain Name has been used since registration for a website that offers for sale meals and food. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.4 The Complainant has satisfied the Panel that it has registered trade rights in the term “Michelin”. ...
2021-04-29 - Case Details