Discussion and findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed in this administrative proceeding, the Complainant must prove that:
(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 was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...For the foregoing reasons, the Panel holds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CARREFOUR European and international marks.
The Complainant has therefore satisfied its burden of proof for this element of the Policy.
...
2019-02-07 - Case Details
The addition of merely generic, descriptive or geographical wording to a trademark in a domain name would normally be insufficient in itself to avoid a finding of confusing similarity. Thus, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.
Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is undisputed that Complainant has rights over the HEETS trademark.
Since the addition of a generic Top-Level Domain suffix after a domain name is technically required, it is well established that such element may be disregarded where assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark.
...
2019-05-29 - 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 the Panel deems applicable.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element that the Complainant must establish is that the disputed domain name is identical with, or confusingly similar to, the Complainant’s name, trade mark or service mark.
There are two parts to this inquiry: the Complainant must demonstrate that it has rights in a trade mark and, if so, the disputed domain name must be identical or confusingly similar to the trade mark.
The Complainant has proven that it owns the registered trade mark TECHNAL.
...
2019-01-30 - Case Details
The Respondent’s Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
2 The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
3. ...The Panel is satisfied that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s KAREN MILLEN trade mark in that the dominant component of the Domain Name is the word “karenmillen” and the words “outletonline” and the top level domain “.com” in the Domain Name are not distinctive.
...
2011-10-03 - Case Details
It is quite evident that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark and trade name of Complainant in which Complainant has rights. The only difference concerns the domain name denominator, but this circumstance is irrelevant.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element to be proved by Complainant is that Complainant has rights over a trademark or service mark. ...
2011-06-08 - Case Details
On the substance, the Panel decides as follows:
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the following three elements is present:
(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark; 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.
The Panel will therefore deal with each of these requirements in turn.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The top level “.com” of the disputed domain name is to be ignored for the purposes of assessing confusingly similarity as it is a functional requirement of the domain name system, which is the common view of UDRP panels and held been decided in earlier cases such as DHL Operations B.V. v. ...
2011-08-31 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainants have established that they are owners of a number of DR. MARTENS trademarks in China and internationally.
...Accordingly the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainants’ trademark and the condition of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been fulfilled.
...
2013-02-22 - Case Details
For ease of reference, the Panel will refer to the Respondent’s supplemental filing in what follows simply as the Response and the Complainant’s supplemental filing as the Rejoinder.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There are two parts to this inquiry: the Complainant must demonstrate that it has rights in a trademark, and, if so, the disputed domain name must be shown to be identical or confusingly similar to the proven trademark.
...The trademark LEGO, at least, is very well-known and famous.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to these proven rights of the Complainant. The word “lego” is effectively the distinctive element of the disputed domain name. ...
2011-12-23 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel cannot but pinpoint that Complainant provides sufficient evidence that it has rights in the trademark ARAMCO, which it registered throughout the world.
...In the light of the above, the Panel finds that that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademarks, and thus that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy
B. ...
2012-03-21 - Case Details
Each of three elements must be established by a complainant to warrant relief.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
As to the first ground, the disputed domain name must be shown to be identical or confusingly similar to trade marks in which the Complainant has rights.
...The Panel finds that this is so and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a number of the registered trade marks of the Complainant and also its common law marks.
...
2011-12-29 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainants have rights in respect of the CATALUNYA BANC trade mark on the basis of Catalunya Caixa's CTM registration for such mark dated June 9, 2011, in which Catalunya Banc has rights in by virtue of its affiliation with Catalunya Caixa.
It is a well-established rule that in making an enquiry as to whether a trade mark is identical or confusingly similar to a domain name, the domain extension, in this case <.com> and <.net>, should be disregarded (Rohde & Schwartz GmbH & Co. ...
2012-03-13 - Case Details
A cease and desist letter was sent to the Respondent on July 10, 2012 requesting the Respondent to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant.
Each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s FORTUM trademark. The words “heat”, “power” and “energy” are generic and of Complainant’s business descriptive terms. ...Consequently, this Panel finds the disputed domain names confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has established rights. The first element of the paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is thus fulfilled.
...
2013-01-15 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Panel that the Complainant has rights in the trade mark HOME RETAIL GROUP. ...In all of the above circumstances, the Panel determines that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights and that accordingly the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy have been satisfied.
...
2013-02-08 - Case Details
It is clear that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to trademarks in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant also has a significant body of previous UDRP decisions, which are cited in the Complaint.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant does have registered trademark rights in the mark VIRGIN by virtue of its many trademark registrations.
...
2013-03-28 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it is the owner of a number of ELECTROLUX trademarks in China and internationally. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights and the condition of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been fulfilled.
...
2013-04-17 - Case Details
Therefore, the Panel elects to accept the Complainant’s supplemental submission and has relied on it in reaching this decision.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant’s FIMO Marks and is identical to such marks. ...In this regard, the Panel wishes to point out that it is well established that a domain name that wholly incorporates a trademark may be confusingly similar to such trademark for purposes of the Policy despite the addition of common or generic words. ...
2015-03-30 - Case Details
Upon considering the above, the Panel decides to accept the Complainant's request and rules that English be the language of proceedings.
B. 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.
...To this end, prior UDRP panels have established that attracting Internet traffic by using a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark may be evidence of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP.
...
2012-04-23 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant contends, in relevant part, as follows:
- The Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the WINSTON Trademark because they contain “(a) an exact reproduction of the registered mark WINSTON; (b) followed either by the country code ‘.ph’, or by the ‘.com.ph’ suffix, all in one continuous domain name...Policy, paragraph 4(1).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based upon the trademark registrations cited by Complainant, as well as the accompanying copies of trademark registration certificates, it is apparent that Complainant has rights in and to the WINSTON Trademark.
...
2012-07-19 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name of the Respondent is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark ACCUTANE. The disputed domain name contains the entire ACCUTANE trademark of the Complainant. ...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel as to the principles to use in rendering its decision: “A Panel shall decide a 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.”
...
2012-06-05 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name of the Respondent is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark ACCUTANE. The disputed domain name contains the entire ACCUTANE trademark of the Complainant. ...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel as to the principles to use in rendering its decision: “A Panel shall decide a 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.”
...
2012-06-05 - Case Details