Complainant
The Complainant asserts that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its registered FINE ART REGISTRY service mark. The Complainant believes that Park West Gallery is behind the registration and use of the Domain Name and that the registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
...This Decision will refer henceforth to Cartoon Heaven as the Respondent.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant unquestionably holds the registered service mark FINE ART REGISTRY. This mark is incorporated in its entirety in the Domain Name. ...
2008-10-23 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The crucial point of this case seems to be whether the Complainant actually holds rights in a trademark or service mark for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...For the purpose of assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark, the suffix “com” must be disregarded as being simply a necessary component of a generic top level domain name.
...
2008-08-01 - Case Details
Each of the aforesaid three elements must be proved by a complainant to warrant relief.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant’s TITONI trademark is registered at the China Trademark Office. See Factual Background, supra. ...Respondent argues that the disputed domain name is not confusingly similar to the trademark because he proposes to use it in a different line of commerce than Complainant. ...
2008-07-29 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that each of the three elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is given in the present case:
(1) The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's INPI Marks as it incorporates the Complainant's acronym “INPI” in its entirety...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant's distinctive INPI Marks in which the Complainant has rights and is therefore confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks nos. 3449071 and 532435 and identical to the Complainant's trademark no. 3449074.
...
2008-12-09 - Case Details
Each of these requirements will be considered in turn below.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has a registered European Community trademark in respect of a logo comprising the name “Proline UK”. ...The Panel considers that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered Community mark. Internet users would naturally assume that a website at “www.prolineuk.com” is connected with the proprietor of the registered “PROLINE UK” logo.
...
2008-07-17 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant owns trade mark registrations, including international trade mark registrations, in the trade mark DANONE which precede the registration of the disputed domain name. ...Therefore, the Panel is of the view that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark DANONE and the first limb of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is satisfied. ...
2008-07-10 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar or essentially identical to its trademark EDMONTON JOURNAL. The gTLD identifier “.com” is of no significance in the Internet context. ...The Panel finds the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the trademark EDMONTON JOURNAL in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...
2008-07-10 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant owns trade mark registrations, including international trade mark registrations, in the trade mark PICANOL which precedes the registration of the disputed domain name. ...Therefore, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark PICANOL and the first limb of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is satisfied.
...
2008-09-01 - Case Details
The Complainant further argues that: (i) it has trademark rights over the mark ZYNGA; (ii) the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the ZYNGA mark; (iii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the ZYNGA mark; and (iv) the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith.
...The Complainant argues that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its own ZYNGA mark: “Because Respondent's Domain Names reflect Complainant's coined and arbitrary Mark in its entirety, with the addition of non-distinctive elements such as CHIPS (which merely reinforce the association of ZYNGA with Complainant), the Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant's ZYNGA Mark.”
...
2009-08-10 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain names fully incorporate the Complainant's well-known NOKIA Marks in which the Complainant has exclusive rights.
...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 (cf. ...
2010-01-19 - Case Details
Furthermore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is substantially identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark SANPAOLO IMI despite the addition of the generic top-level domain “.mobi”. ...It is well-established practice to disregard the top-level part of a domain name, when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark in issue. Société Anonyme des Eaux Minerales d'Evian v. Beroca Holdings B.V.I. ...
2010-01-08 - Case Details
Furthermore, the disputed domain name is also confusingly similar to the Complainant’s “CROP'S The natural choice” marks. The fact that some of the Complainant’s trademarks contain additional elements, namely the additional words “The natural choice” and graphical elements, does not preclude a finding of confusing similarity. ...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s word marks “Crop’s” and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s “CROP'S The natural choice” marks and that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2011-03-09 - Case Details
Parties Contentions
5.A Complainants
Identical or Confusingly Similar
5.A.1 The Complainants say that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to their RAPID SHARE trademarks for three reasons. ...That is, the Policy expressly recognizes that other circumstances can be evidence relevant to the requirements of paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and (iii) of the Policy.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.5 The Complainants have demonstrated that they have rights in the registered trademark RAPID SHARE.
6.6. ...
2010-06-17 - Case Details
Parties contention
5.A Complainants
Identical or Confusingly Similar
5.A.1 The Complainants say that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to their RAPID SHARE trademarks for three reasons. ...That is, the Policy expressly recognizes that other circumstances can be evidence relevant to the requirements of paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and (iii) of the Policy.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.5 The Complainants have demonstrated that they have rights in the registered trademark RAPID SHARE.
6.6. ...
2010-06-16 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.
...B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2010-03-03 - 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
Complainant
The Complainant argues that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its VISIONS marks, and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. ...With this finding, it is unnecessary to determine whether the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered VISIONS 1000 and VISIONS 2000 trademarks for purposes of the first Policy element, and it is also unnecessary to consider whether the Complaint can be grounded on design marks that incorporate the word “Visions.”
...
2007-10-25 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant contends that the domain name (i) incorporates the well-known LIMEWIRE marks, (ii) merely appends to the term LIMEWIRE the generic term “store”, (iii) is confusingly similar to Complainant’s domain name, and (iv) is confusingly similar to Complainant’s LIMEWIRE’s marks.
...The Panel will now review each of the three cumulative elements set forth in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy to determine whether Complainant has complied with such requirements.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel notes that Complainant’s registered trademark is LIME WIRE, the LIMEWIRE trademark having been registered by an affiliate in the European Union, not in the United States of America. ...
2007-09-05 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to trademarks in which Complainant has rights.
The Complainant highlights that Christian Dior Couture uses the trademark CHRISTIAN DIOR all over the world.
...In view of the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2007-08-29 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant alleges that the contentious domain name is confusingly similar to the AMERICAN FUNDS mark, for it merely omits the letter “e” from the trademark but otherwise reproduces it verbatim.
...The Panel will therefore deal with each of these requirements in turn.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the contentious domain name is confusingly similar to the AMERICAN FUNDS mark. ...
2007-08-24 - Case Details