D2002-0122).
The Panel finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.
Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
...Respondent
7. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
8. Decision...
2023-10-11 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Golovenkov
Case No. D2023-2576
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith...
2023-10-09 - Case Details
The burden of proof of each element is borne by the Complainant.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Language of the Proceeding
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-08-05 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the f irst 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...
2025-05-12 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided evidence of its trade mark registration for LABE, details of which are set out
above. ...Ann Labe
Case No. D2022-1040
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith...
2022-06-01 - Case Details
It says that disregarding the top-level elements, these domain names are substantially identical with or confusingly similar to the disputed domain names, namely, , , , , , and , which leads to a greater likelihood of consumer confusion.
...Accordingly, the Panel finds that each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to the Complainant's COLORBOND mark and the Complaint succeeds under this element of the Policy.
...
2016-09-16 - Case Details
The Complainant asserts in this letter that the Respondent not only chose a domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s domain name, but also the Respondent chose an overall design and layout for its website at the disputed domain name that was similar to the design of the Complainant’s website, as it existed from approximately 2004 to December 2015. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s protected identifier and the Complaint succeeds under the first element of the Policy.
...
2016-12-27 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant relies on its unregistered trademark rights in the name CHRISTY MEDIA SOLUTIONS. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that, as a result of its trading history and its advertising and promotional activities over a period of ten years under the name “Christy Media Solutions”, the Complainant has acquired rights in that name in the nature of unregistered trademark rights. ...
2016-03-18 - Case Details
In the Panel’s view, that approach to the onus of proof under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP is sensible, and is equally applicable to paragraph 6(a)(ii) of the Policy.
In this case, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s RBS Mark, and the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use that mark, whether in a domain name or otherwise. ...Thus the Respondent has been holding the Domain Name subject to the possibility that a trademark owner having a mark identical or confusingly similar to the Domain Name might file a complaint under the Policy alleging that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, and that the Respondent registered or has been using the Domain Name in bad faith. ...
2012-07-19 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the trademark SWAROVSKI as the addition of the terms “jewelry” and “onsale” as suffixes to the trademark SWAROVSKI does not lessen the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark.
...In view of the above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2013-03-05 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is identical to Complainant's BOOKIT.COM marks except for a geographically descriptive term, which actually increases the likelihood of confusion. Respondent's website uses a logo which is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark. Not only is Respondent's domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's BOOKIT.COM Mark, but its website also incorporates a design mark which is nearly identical to the BOOKIT.COM logos, for which Complainant owns U.S. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
By its trademark registrations in the United States and various other countries, Complainant has shown to the satisfaction of the Panel that it has trademark rights in the BOOKIT.COM mark. ...
2014-06-25 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that each of the three elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied in the present case, as follows:
(i) The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant asserts that it is well known as SBOBET, a leader in online betting industry. ...However, the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent’s default.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is required to establish the two following elements: (1) that it has trademark rights, and, if so, (2) that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to such trademark.
...
2014-04-01 - Case Details
Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0455.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's MUMA marks for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...The addition of the gTLD “.com” is not significant in determining whether the Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the mark. CBS Broadcasting Inc. v. Worldwide Webs, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0834. ...
2010-05-07 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered after the Complainant had acquired its Common Law trademark rights and that it is confusingly similar to the trademark LIBRARICA. The Complainant says that, compared with its trademark, the disputed domain name is phonetically identical, looks nearly identical with the exception of one letter, and also denotes the word "library". ...The Policy deals with complaints of abusive registration and use of a domain name confusingly similar to a trademark. It does not deal with trademark infringement or confusion between trademarks per se. ...
2015-09-28 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
1. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant Shonda Rhimes is a famous screenwriter, director, and producer best known as the creator, writer, and executive producer of the American television series “Grey’s Anatomy.” ...Discussion and Findings
In order to prevail, a complainant must prove, as to each disputed domain name, that:
(i) It is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the complainant has rights.
(ii) The respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to it.
...
2011-11-18 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Having placed in the record concrete evidence of its trademark registration with the USPTO, the Complainant has persuaded the Panel that the Complainant has valid rights in its mark, AABB, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...The Panel is aware of many prior Policy decision that have held that use of a disputed domain name for marketing of products or services similar to those offered by the holder of a trademark identical or confusingly similar to the name is not “a bona fide offering of goods or services” per paragraph 4(c)(i). ...
2008-03-06 - Case Details
The Complainant’s Trademark
The Complainant contends that the domain names at issue are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant says that he uses the initials of his name in business as a “trade feature” and also uses the email address featuring his name . ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In this case, the Complainant does not hold a registered trademark in his name. Nor is there any evidence that the Complainant has ever used his personal name for the purpose of advertising or promoting his business or for the sale of any goods or services. ...
2004-10-08 - Case Details
The onus of proving these elements is that of the Complainant.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant does not hold any registered trade mark rights in its trading name, “Norton Peskett” and has therefore sought to establish common law trade mark rights in this term.
...This approach is also reflected in the “Overview of WIPO Panel Views” (located at www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview/index.html):
“In the event that a domain name confusingly similar to a trademark is being used for a genuine non-commercial free speech web site, there are two main views. ...
2009-07-31 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel will deal with the Complaint on its merits.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element that the Complainants must establish is that the disputed domain name is identical with, or
confusingly similar to, the Complainants’ name, trade mark or service mark.
There are two parts to this inquiry: the Complainants must demonstrate that they (or one of them) has rights
in a name, trade mark or service mark at the date the Complaint was filed and, if so, the disputed domain
name must be identical or confusingly similar to the name or mark.
The Complainants have proven that the First Complainant owns at least the two registered trade marks for
SAP referred to in section 4 above, noting that Trade Mark No 865560 is for a figurative mark.
...
2023-07-19 - Case Details
See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.0”),
section 4.11.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-05-21 - Case Details