Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the MIDEA trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
Further, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names. ...Under these circumstances, the Panel finds it more appropriate and fair to render this decision in English.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complaint clearly has trademark rights to MIDEA, and has been using this mark extensively throughout the world. ...
2021-06-23 - Case Details
Complainant
5.1 The Complainant refers to its business and trade marks and refers to previous UDRP cases in which it has been involved where 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 and that the Respondent in choosing the Domain Name intended an association with the Complainant.
5.2 The Complainant refers to the way in which the Domain Name has been used since registration. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.4 The Complainant has satisfied the Panel that it has registered trade mark rights in the term “Michelin”. ...
2021-05-10 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which it has rights because: (i) the disputed domain name comprises the Complainant’s THERMOMIX trademark in its entirety as its leading element, together with the descriptive term “online” under the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”; (ii) the addition of the descriptive term “online” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity with the Complainant’s THERMOMIX trademark, which remains clearly recognizable as the leading element of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the applicable gTLD can be disregarded as it is viewed as a standard registration requirement.
...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 THERMOMIX trademark. ...
2021-06-01 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name incorporates Complainant’s trademark XFINITY 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 XFINITY mark of Complainant.
Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2020-04-14 - Case Details
Complainant
In its Complaint, Complainant contends as follows:
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WHATSAPP trademarks. The disputed domain name incorporates this mark in its entirety as its prominent element, in conjunction with the descriptive term “dating”.
...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the WHATSAPP trademark, in which Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel also notes that according to the relevant WhoIs database, the registrant of record of the disputed domain name is “Anuj Patney”, and there is no evidence that this person is known by the disputed domain name. ...
2020-03-24 - Case Details
According to section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark the domain name will normally be considered identical or confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing. The Panel finds that in the present case the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety without any additions.
...According to section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. ...
2021-04-22 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has provided evidence establishing that it has trademark rights in the MONTE-CARLO mark through registration in Monaco. ...In comparing Complainant’s MONTE-CARLO mark with the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with Complainant’s mark. The disputed domain name contains Complainant’s MONTE-CARLO mark in its entirety. ...
2021-03-02 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights in the PROXEED trade mark, based on its various trade mark registrations.
It is well established that in making an enquiry as to whether a trade mark is identical or confusingly similar to a domain name, the Top-Level Domain extension (“.ro” in this case) may be disregarded. ...
2021-03-17 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that its registered trademark is prominent and present in its entirety in the disputed domain name, which is therefore confusingly similar to the trademark. The additional dictionary terms “clearance” and “sale” are insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s trademark.
...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 has produced evidence satisfactory to the Panel of its ownership of the registered trademark 2XU.
...
2021-04-14 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has provided evidence establishing that it has trademark rights in the DMTG mark through registration in the United Kingdom. ...In comparing Complainant’s DMTG mark with the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with Complainant’s mark. The disputed domain name contains Complainant’s DMTG mark in its entirety. ...
2021-03-15 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP requires Complainant to make out all three of the following:
(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) Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...In comparing Complainant’s LINKEDIN mark with the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. The disputed domain name consists of an obvious misspelling of Complainant’s mark. ...
2021-07-06 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Based on article 2.1 of the Regulations, a request to transfer a domain name must meet three cumulative conditions:
(a) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to:
I. a trademark, or trade name, protected under Dutch law in which the complainant has rights; or
II. a personal name registered in the General Municipal Register (“gemeentelijke basisadministratie”) of a municipality in the Netherlands, or the name of a Dutch public legal entity or the name of an association or foundation registered in the Netherlands under which complainant undertakes public activities on a permanent basis; and
(b) respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(c) the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.
...As a result, the Panel is directed to decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of the complaint only.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Article 2.1(a) of the Regulations requires two elements to be proven. A disputed domain name should be (i) identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or tradename (ii) in which a complainant has rights.
...
2020-07-21 - Case Details
In sum, the disputed domain name is identical or at least confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademarks, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name entirely incorporates and reproduces the Complainant’s trademarks GEICO; the disputed domain name only differs from the Complainant’s distinctive trademarks inasmuch as it adds the ccTLD “.com.co”.
...
2020-09-15 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is almost identical to the SODEXO mark and company name, and the only difference between is the addition of the final vowel “a” at the end of the disputed domain name. ...As the only pleading before the Panel is in English, the Panel will render its decision in English.
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SODEXO mark because the disputed domain name incorporates the trademark SODEXO in full, followed by the letter “a”. ...
2020-09-14 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy sets forth the following three requirements, which have to be met for this Panel to order the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant:
(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 disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...For the reasons above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a non-exclusive list of circumstances that may indicate the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...
2022-01-27 - Case Details
and which bank information (IBAN and etc)?”
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Once the gTLD “.com” is ignored (which is appropriate in this case), the disputed domain name consists of the whole of the Complainant’s registered word trademark INSTA followed by a hyphen and the word “shark”. ...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 INSTA word trademark. ...
2021-08-27 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy sets forth the following three requirements, which have to be met for this Panel to order the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant:
(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 disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...In accordance with paragraph 14(a) of the Rules, if the Respondent does not submit a Response, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall decide the dispute based upon the Complaint.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established its rights in the registered PANAVISION trademark.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name only differs by a hyphen to the Complainant’s trademark and is therefore confusingly similar to it. ...
2021-08-26 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence provided, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the IQOS mark.
...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant has satisfied the first element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2021-09-08 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel notes that the trademark rights claimed as a basis for this Complaint are owned by Electrolux Italia S.p.A, a subsidiary of the Complainant. ...The disputed domain name is indeed confusingly similar with the earlier trademarks ZANUSSI of the Complainant. The disputed domain name consists, materially, in the mere combination of the word “Zanussi”, which is identical to the trademarks of the Complainant, and the word “Center”. ...
2019-09-26 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s POLIMODA trademark. The only distinguishing feature is the disputed domain name’s “.pw” TLD extension. However, a TLD is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded in determining whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar. In this respect, the Panel refers to section 1.11 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).
...
2019-12-16 - Case Details