Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its prior registered OSRAM trade mark which enjoys a high reputation worldwide. The addition of the prefix “led” does not impact on the similarity assessment because this term is descriptive in the lighting industry.
...Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark.
Therefore, the Complainant has satisfied the first element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2018-05-18 - 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 was 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.
...
2018-06-18 - Case Details
The trademark NINEBOT is recognizable within the Domain Name and the combination of "segway", "-" and "ninebot" does not prevent the Domain Name from being considered as confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks.
The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. ...Accordingly, and since both Parties seem to understand English, the Panel decides that English is the procedural language.
6.2 Substantive Elements of the Policy
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the owner of the trademark NINEBOT.
The company Segway Inc. is the owner of the trademark SEGWAY.
...
2018-07-13 - Case Details
The Respondent is not known by the name “Novotel” nor does it have prior rights or interests in the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name is so confusingly similar to the Complainant’s famous NOVOTEL mark and its Novotel Rizhao Suning hotel that the Respondent cannot reasonably pretend that it was intending to develop a legitimate activity through the disputed domain name. ...The Panel therefore concludes that it would be appropriate for English to be adopted as the language of the proceeding.
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established it has rights in the trade mark NOVOTEL. The trade mark NOVOTEL has been incorporated in its entirety in the disputed domain name. ...
2018-06-28 - 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 that it is part of a corporate conglomerate of 4 publicly listed companies in India, commonly known as “The Wadia Group”. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that each of the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to registered trade marks in which the Complainant owns rights and the Complaint succeeds under the first element of the Policy.
...
2018-08-22 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the PANAVISION trade mark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. ...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s PANAVISION trade mark.
Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied the first element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2018-08-21 - Case Details
Complainant
Key contentions of the Complaint may be summarized as follows:
The AGFA mark is famous and predates the registration of the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the AGFA mark creating the impression that the Complainant is the sponsor of, or is associated with, the web site identified by the disputed domain name. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark, and the first element of the Policy under paragraph 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
...
2020-11-23 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical and confusingly similar to its own registered domain name , its registered business name “Lion King Flooring Pty Ltd”, and its unregistered trademark LION KING FLOORING.
...Thus, for the Complainant to satisfy the first requirement of the Policy – having rights in a trademark or service mark to which the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar – she must show that LION KING FLOORING constitutes an unregistered or common law trademark.
...
2019-04-11 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has demonstrated rights through registration and use of the INTERSPORT mark.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the INTERSPORT trademark of Complainant.
The Domain Name incorporates the said trademark of Complainant in its entirety. ...
2019-04-10 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the mark FENTY through registration and use. The Panel also finds the Domain Name to be confusingly similar to the mark. The dominant portion of the Domain Name is the FENTY mark, and the additional word “entertainment” does nothing to diminish the confusing similarity between the mark and the Domain Name.
...
2019-02-15 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no proprietary rights or legitimate interests in the name “Christian Roth” or in the disputed domain name. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established rights in the CHRISTIAN ROTH trademark by virtue of its registration and use, as set out in section 4 above.
...
2019-03-27 - Case Details
As a consequence they claim that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to that trade mark.
5.4 The Complainants further contend that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, asserting that none of the examples of rights or legitimate interests set out in the Policy apply in this case. ...Annette Johnson, Tangerineuk,
WIPO Case No. D2016-2116.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.5 The Panel accepts that both Complainants have an interest in the registered trade mark relied upon. ...
2018-12-20 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s STRIPE trademarks. The Complainant has rights in the STRIPE trademarks by virtue of its trademark registrations. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the STRIPE trademark. The Complainant has established that it is the owner of trademark registrations of the STRIPE trademark in many jurisdictions.
...
2018-04-16 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
The Complainant must prove that the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been met:
(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name; and
(iii) The disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.
As the Respondent has failed to submit a Response to the Complainant’s contentions, the Panel may choose to accept as true all of the reasonable allegations of the Complainant (see Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. null John Zuccarini, Country Walk,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0487).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s FIDELITY trademarks because it incorporates them in their entirety.
...
2018-01-11 - Case Details
Complainant’s MONKEY SHOULDER whisky has received media coverage, such as in The Spirits Business, BBC and Food & Beverage Magazine.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MONKEY SHOULDER trademark. The addition of the initials “us” – presumably an acronym representing “United States” – does nothing to distinguish the disputed domain name from said trademark. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is undisputed that Complainant has rights over the MONKEY SHOULDER trademark.
The disputed domain name entirely incorporates the MONKEY SHOULDER trademark, adding a suffix (“us”) and the generic Top-Level Domain “.com”. ...
2018-01-10 - Case Details
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 trademark of the Complainant. However, it incorporates the trademark VENTE-PRIVEE in its entirety and in unaltered form. ...Therefore the Panel holds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark VENTE-PRIVEE.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name or as “Vente-Privee”. ...
2018-03-29 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademarks, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. ...Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.
Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied the first element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2018-03-28 - Case Details
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions on the merits.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence on record, the Panel has no hesitation in finding that the Complainant has rights in the FACEBOOK trademark. ...The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.
The Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2018-02-28 - Case Details
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires a complainant to prove each of the following three elements in order to obtain an order that the disputed domain name be transferred or cancelled:
(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 has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Panel will therefore proceed to analyze whether the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, a complainant must first of all establish rights in a trademark or service mark and secondly establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the complainant has rights.
...
2018-02-08 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the mark FREDDO through longstanding registration and use demonstrated in the record. The Panel also finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the mark. The Domain Name fully incorporates the distinctive FREDDO mark and adds the descriptive word “frog”. ...
2020-09-10 - Case Details