Complainant
The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s GEICO mark.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence presented, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the GEICO mark.
...
2021-10-12 - Case Details
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2009/d2009-1779.html
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-0605.html
page 4
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires Complainant show that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly
similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s
CARRY-ON Registrations in which Complainant has valid trademark rights. ...
2022-08-16 - Case Details
Complainant
In summary, the Complainant contends as follows:
Identical or confusingly similar
The generic Top-Level domain “.com” is of no distinguishing effect and must be removed from the analysis.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element analysis under the Policy is usually conducted in two parts. First, the Panel ascertains
whether the Complainant has UDRP-relevant rights in a trademark, which may be registered or unregistered.
...
2022-09-15 - Case Details
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a
name, amounting to an unregistered trademark, in which the Complainant has rights.
...Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Alexis Dover, White Cliffs Online Ltd
Case No. D2022-2520
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith...
2022-09-07 - Case Details
Upon considering the above, the Panel determines that English be the language of the proceeding.
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the complainant to show that the disputed domain name is identical
or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights.
...Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant has shown that the disputed domain names are
confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?...
2022-08-11 - Case Details
Given the fame attaching to the AMWAY mark, the Complainant submits that the use of the disputed domain
name, which is confusingly similar to that mark is evidence of bad faith. The only purpose for adopting the
disputed domain name would be to illegitimately profit from its association with the Complainant. ...In the circumstances it appears that the Respondent will suffer no injustice from the proceedings,
in particular the issuing of this decision, being in English.
page 5
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is not identical to the AMWAY trademark of the Complainant. ...
2022-07-28 - Case Details
Thirdly, it is submitted that since the
Respondent is seeking to profit from the sale of a confusingly similar domain name that incorporates the
Complainant’s trademark, that conduct in itself is further indicative of bad faith use under the Policy.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.3 This Panel finds that the Complainant is a well-known Swedish bank firmly entrenched in Sweden’s
banking history with substantial international and Internet presence. ...
2022-08-26 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s well known and registered AMERICAN AIRLINES, US AIRWAYS, and USAIR marks. ...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 AMERICAN,
AMERICAN AIRLINES, USAIR, and US AIRWAYS marks, in which the Complainant has established rights
through registration and use. ...
2022-09-20 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated it owns registered trademark rights in the famous VILLEROY & BOCH
mark and has shown that no other entity has rights in or uses the Complainant’s mark. ...The Parties
A. Complainant
B. Respondent
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith...
2022-09-29 - Case Details
In the instant case, the disputed domain name using
the Complainant’s trademark CORNING in its entirety, coupled with a few additional terms, is confusingly
similar to the Complainant’s CORNING Trademarks.
The Panelist finds that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy have been satisfied.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-11-03 - Case Details
Accordingly, this Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the SEALED AIR mark,
and the first element of the Policy under paragraph 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
...Aniket Bansode,
Case No. D2022-3245
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith...
2022-11-03 - Case Details
In view of the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the BPCE
trademarks, in which the Complainant has rights. The requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy are,
therefore, satisfied.
...According to WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4, the registration of a domain name that is identical or
confusingly similar to a widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of
bad faith. ...
2022-12-20 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its WOLFSPEED
trademark, which it incorporates entirely without the addition of other elements.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-12-15 - Case Details
Accordingly, this Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademark, and the first element of the Policy under paragraph 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-03-22 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s registered MIXCLOUD mark. The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name
presents a clear and direct reference to the Complainant’s MIXCLOUD mark, which has been registered in
the EU and the US.
...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 if not identical to the Complainant’s
MIXCLOUD mark, in which the Complainant has established rights through registration and substantial use.
...
2022-07-13 - Case Details
Upon considering the above, the Panel determines that English be the language of the proceeding.
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the complainant to show that the disputed domain names are
identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights.
...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to a trademark in which
the Complainant has rights and the element under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2022-07-08 - Case Details
Complainant
The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s J. CREW mark and J. CREW
REWARDS mark. The marks are deliberately misspelt or have additional letters in the disputed domain
names.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence presented, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the J. ...
2022-07-06 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant essentially contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks for WILLOW TREE, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name was registered, and is being used in bad faith.
...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark, and that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of the first element under the Policy.
...
2022-03-02 - Case Details
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the name PUT-UP ISTRE in respect of which the Complainant has a right recognized or established by national law of a Member State, because the disputed domain name incorporates the name PUT-UP ISTRE in its entirety. ...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the name PUT-UP ISTRE for the purposes of Article 21(1) of the Regulation.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Under the ADR Rules, the burden of proof for the lack of rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent lies with the Complainant. ...
2022-04-26 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established it has rights in the FB trade mark. The disputed domain names wholly
comprise the FB trade mark, with the addition of the terms “for sale” and “stores”. ...The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the FB mark in which the
Complainant has rights.
The Panel accordingly finds that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been satisfied.
...
2023-08-08 - Case Details