Respondent
The Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated that it owns European Union Trade Mark registration no. 3353463 registered on January 24, 2005 for its AGFA mark. ...As a consequence, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s AGFA trade mark. The addition of the letters “fq” in the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. ...
2020-07-16 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark; the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Substantive Elements of the Policy
The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark acquired through use and registration.
...
2020-08-10 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contentions can be summarized as follows:
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant contends that the Dispute Domain Name is clearly identical to the Complainant FRIGORIFICO CANELONES trademark. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark FRIGORIFICO CANELONES. ...
2020-08-07 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark; the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Substantive Elements of the Policy
The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark acquired through use and registration. ...
2020-08-04 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is nearly identical and/or confusingly similar to the TOMMY BAHAMA trademark, as well as the domain name for the Tommy Bahama website registered and operated by the Complainant.
...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is not identical to the distinctive TOMMY BAHAMA registered trademark of the Complainant. ...
2019-04-15 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Substantive Elements of the Policy
The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark acquired through use and registration.
...
2019-05-06 - Case Details
The Panel gives the following reasons for its decision.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant proves that it has rights in the AMADEUS trademark based on different trademark registrations in the world. ...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the AMADEUS trademark.
The requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is met.
...
2019-05-24 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s INSTAGRAM trademark. The Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s INSTAGRAM trademark in its entirety with the addition “begen ihilesi”. ...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established rights in the trademark INSTAGRAM. The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. ...
2019-05-13 - Case Details
This dispute resolution procedure is accepted by the domain name registrant as a condition of registration.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the standing test for confusing similarity involves a comparison between the Complainant’s mark and the Disputed Domain Names. ...Accordingly, the Disputed Domain Names and are to be considered confusingly similar to the aforementioned trademarks for purposes of the UDRP. See Alfred Dunhill, Inc. v. ...
2019-06-24 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant is the owner of the trademark ARENA DI VERONA both by registration and acquired reputation and that the disputed domain name is identical to the trademark ARENA DI VERONA.
...The Panel finds that the Complainant has therefore met its burden of proving that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has failed to file a Response in accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5.
...
2020-05-25 - Case Details
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following: (i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has submitted evidence of its rights in the SKYSCANNER trademark.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. ...
2020-04-24 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Marks, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, and the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
...Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English.
6.2 Substantive Elements of the Policy
The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark acquired through use and registration.
...
2019-10-03 - 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 established its rights in the BANQUE DE LUXEMBOURG and BDL device, which is partially incorporated in the disputed domain name and thus recognizable within the disputed domain name, what fulfills the standing test required by the Policy, WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), Section 1.7.
...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The first element of the Policy has been established.
...
2019-10-02 - Case Details
Complainant
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s AGFA trade mark. The Complainant stated that “[b]y using AGFA in the domain name, the Respondent creates confusion as consumers may believe that this domain name refers to the Complainant”.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the AGFA trade mark as the inclusion of the descriptive word “medical” and a hyphen does not serve to remove the confusing similarity with the AGFA trade mark. ...
2019-08-08 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark; the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Substantive Elements of the Policy
The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Marks acquired through use and registration.
...
2019-10-24 - Case Details
The Complainant has trade mark rights in the mark SKYSCANNER and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trade mark SKYSCANNER;
2. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name;
3. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark SKYSCANNER. In reaching this conclusion the Panel also takes into account that it is entitled on long established authority to ignore the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”.
...
2019-10-18 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark; the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Substantive Elements of the Policy
The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark acquired through use and registration.
...
2019-10-14 - Case Details
According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s IBM trademark as it incorporates the aforesaid trademark in its entirety.
...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The first element of the Policy has been established.
...
2019-08-27 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainants’ contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainants have demonstrated that they own registered trade mark rights in the AMRESORTS mark, in particular United States word mark registration 2776812 registered on October 21, 2003. The disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainants’ AMRESORTS mark and is therefore confusingly similar to the Complainants’ registered AMRESORTS trade mark. The Panel notes that the disputed domain name includes nothing else before the gTLD “.club” root and that overall this latter does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainants’ trade mark. ...
2019-08-20 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant does have common law rights in the trademark and trade name JILLIANE HOFFMAN, by virtue of the fact that the mark is her personal name which has been extensively used in association with a series of successful novels over a period of fifteen years. ...The Panel finds that the Respondent was not authorized or licensed to use the Complainant’s common law trademark, and the Respondent is not commonly known by the name “Jilliane Hoffman”. The Respondent acquired the confusingly similar disputed domain name by virtue of an error by the domain name management company Mednet Technologies. ...
2019-09-27 - Case Details