Complaiant
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s FACEBOOK mark. The Complainant observes that the Complainant’s FACEBOOK mark is clearly recognizable within the disputed domain names, and asserts that the addition of the descriptive elements “freeporn”, “porn”, “porno”, “pornoxxx”, “videos”, “vids”, “xnxx”, “xvideos”, “xvids” and “xxx” does not preclude a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the Policy. ...International Electronic Communications Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names , , , , , , , , and are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s distinctive and well-known FACEBOOK mark. ...
2020-07-06 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ALSTOM mark. The Complainant observes that the disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the ALSTOM mark and as such is recognizable in the domain name. ...International Electronic Communications Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ALSTOM mark, in which the Complainant has established rights through registration and use. ...
2020-04-08 - Case Details
Complainant
The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. The disputed domain names identically adopt the Complainant’s HEETS or IQOS trademarks. ...Considering the above the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks, therefore, the Complainant has established its case under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2020-02-24 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s KABBAGE mark. The Complainant explains that the relevant comparison to be made is with the second-level portion of the disputed domain name, and that the generic Top-Level Domain Name (“gTLD”) “.com” is disregarded for this purpose. ...International Electronic Communications Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s KABBAGE mark, in which the Complainant has established rights through registration and use. ...
2020-03-11 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the NESTLÉ 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.
...
2020-03-09 - Case Details
Second, although the Complainant does not own a registered trademark identical or confusingly similar to the disputed domain name, it claims to have right to the “CV Timeline” unregistered mark. ...See section 4.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Under this head, the Complainant is required to show that it has UDRP-relevant rights for purposes of standing to bring a case and secondly that such trademark is identical or confusingly similar to the disputed domain name. ...
2021-01-06 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the MAISON DECOR trademark.
...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant has satisfied the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2019-11-28 - Case Details
With reference to the circumstances evidencing bad faith, the Complainant asserts that by registering the disputed domain name, confusingly similar to both the trademark ENTONOX and the Complainant’s domain name , the Respondent has demonstrated prior knowledge and familiarity with the Complainant’s trademark and business.
...Paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(i) of the ADR Rules determines that the Panel shall issue a decision granting the remedies requested in the event that the Complainant proves “The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized by the national law of a Member State and/or Community law”.
...
2020-01-13 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided evidence of his ownership of an Andorran trademark registration, THOMAS LEEN.
...The Panel finds the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2020-01-09 - Case Details
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the complainant prove each of the following three elements to obtain a decision that a domain name should be either cancelled or transferred:
(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name; and
(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...See section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names and are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known FACEBOOK and FB marks, in which the Complainant has demonstrated rights through registration and use. ...
2019-12-30 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant makes the following submissions.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant was founded and first started using the trade mark MATILDA JANE with clothing in 2004. ...In this case, the Panel finds that the Complainant is not barred from bringing the Complaint by reason of its delay.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.
...
2019-11-21 - Case Details
Complainant
The disputed domain name is identical or at least confusingly similar to the Complainant’s OSRAM trademark. The additional letter “e” is insufficient to prevent Internet user confusion.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the OSRAM mark.
...
2019-07-04 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its common law GREAT AMERICAN HOTEL GROUP mark, which the Respondent lacks permission to use and in which the Respondent otherwise has no rights or legitimate interests.
...Thus, it may safely be concluded that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the first element of the Policy.
...
2019-09-03 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a), the Complainant must prove each of the following to justify the transfer of the disputed domain name:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...In view of the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the OZ LOTTO trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, UDRP panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often-impossible task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. ...
2019-08-28 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant says that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which it has rights. It refers to its service mark for ACCC INSURANCE COMPANY, full details of which are given above, and says that it has been using and promoting this mark for over twenty years. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has produced evidence of its service mark registration for ACCC INSURANCE COMPANY, as more particularly set out above.
...
2019-06-17 - Case Details
Having considered all circumstances of this case, the Panel concludes under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that English shall be the language of the proceeding.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant owns exclusive rights in the CALVIN KLEIN Trademark, which sufficiently predate the registration of the Disputed Domain Name.
...Previous UDRP panels have recognized that incorporation of a trademark in its entirety is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered mark; see bridport & cie S.A v. Privatewhois.net, Private Whois bridportadvisory.com,
WIPO Case No. ...
2019-09-12 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s NINEBOT mark. The Complainant explains that the NINEBOT mark actually is a combination of the words “nine” and “robot”, and adds that the country-code top-level domain (“ccTLD”) <.cc> does not preclude a finding of confusing similarity.
...International Electronic Communications Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000‑0270.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical and confusingly similar to the NINEBOT mark, in which the Complainant has established rights through registration and use. ...
2021-11-16 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
I. Identical or Confusingly Similar
That the Complaint is based on the prior rights that the Complainant has over the ENEL trademark in Italy and many other countries.
That numerous panels appointed under the Policy have found that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a company’s name and trademark when, as in this case, the domain name incorporates said name and trademark completely.
...
2021-11-10 - Case Details
The Panel will therefore deal with each of these requirements.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element, the Complainant must first establish that there is a trademark or service mark in which it has rights. ...Previous UDRP panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a widely known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith.
...
2021-08-05 - Case Details
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules directs the Panel to decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element that the Complainant must establish is that the disputed domain names are identical with, or confusingly similar to, the Complainant’s trademark rights.
There are two parts to this inquiry: the Complainant must demonstrate that it has rights in a trademark at the date the Complaint was filed and, if so, the disputed domain names must be shown to be identical or confusingly similar to the trademark.
The Complainant has proven ownership of the registered trademarks COVETRUS identified in section 4 above.
...
2021-10-01 - Case Details