For the evaluation of this case, the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and, where appropriate,
will decide consistent with the consensus views stated therein.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To begin with, the Panel confirms that the Complainant has satisfied the threshold requirement of having
relevant trademark rights. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-02-16 - Case Details
The Complainant has never authorized the
Respondent to use the GABRIEL & CO. marks, or any marks confusingly similar thereto, for any purpose,
including as a domain name. Consequently, the Respondent’s use of the Complainant’s GABRIEL & CO.
...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 well-known GABRIEL & CO.
...
2023-04-25 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant claims that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its earlier trademarks,
that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and that the
disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. ...page 3
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the owner of numerous CARREFOUR trademarks, as well as a domain name formed
with CARREFOUR, all registered and used in relation with retail and banking services.
...
2023-04-12 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
...Wolfe filed as originating with the true Respondent in this case.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
A registered trademark provides a clear indication that the rights in the mark shown on the trademark certificate belong to its respective owner. ...
2020-06-24 - Case Details
Complainant
5.1 The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its registered trade marks in that it comprises its mark to which the phrase “bed and breakfast” has been added, and which phrase is said to be descriptive of a type of accommodation that can be booked through the Complainant.
5.2 The Complainant effectively contends that the registrant of the Domain Name and the persons controlling Sky Scanners Bed & Breakfast Limited are the same or closely connected. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.4 The Panel accepts that the most sensible readings of the Domain Name are as either “Sky Scanners Bed and Breakfast” or “SkyScanners Bed and Breakfast” with spaces omitted and together with the “.com” generic Top-Level domain (“gTLD”).
6.5 The Complainant contends that the Domain Name comprises its SKYSCANNER mark combined with the phrase “bed and breakfast”. ...
2020-06-22 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to the TALANX trademark because the disputed domain name includes the entirety of the Complainant’s TALANX trademark and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) name “.icu” is not to be taken into account when assessing issues of identity or confusing similarity.
...As the only pleading before the Panel is in English, the Panel will render its decision in English.
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark because the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s TALANX trademark in full. ...
2020-07-21 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the BLUEGREEN semi-figurative mark.
...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant has satisfied the first element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2020-01-15 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
To succeed, in accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must satisfy the Panel that:
(i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical with or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(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.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the REFLEX MARKETING trademark.
The Disputed Domain Name is identical to the REFLEX MARKETING trademark. ...
2020-01-15 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar to a trademark
The Complainant says it has rights in the term “timeshare” as a trademark. ...In the present case, the Panel notes that the Disputed Domain Name is not identical or confusingly similar to any trademark of the Complainant, and the available evidence, such as it is, suggests that the Respondent’s Website is a genuine criticism site and does not involve any commercial use. ...
2019-12-05 - Case Details
Under paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, “[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”.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element of a UDRP complaint “functions primarily as a standing requirement” and entails “a straightforward comparison between the complainant’s trademark and the domain name”. ...Id., section 1.11.2. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s common law service mark.
Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has established the first element of the Complaint.
...
2020-03-10 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the BVLGARI mark.
...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant has satisfied the first element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2020-01-30 - Case Details
Complainants submit that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainants’ CALVIN KLEIN trademark since the disputed domain name incorporates the trademark in its entirety with the Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) “.buzz” not to be taken into consideration. ...Having said so, the Panel comes to the following decision:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is identical with the CALVIN KLEIN trademark in which Complainants have rights.
...
2019-12-20 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name incorporates Complainant’s trademark SECURITAS in its entirety. This is sufficient to establish confusing similarity (Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...D2002-0122).
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the SECURITAS mark of Complainant.
Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2020-01-06 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to its KURT GEIGER trade mark. The disputed domain names incorporate the Complainant’s KURT GEIGER trade mark in its entirety. ...Therefore, the Panel finds that is identical to the Complainant’s KURT GEIGER trade mark, and is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s KURT GEIGER trade mark. Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied the first element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2020-01-02 - Case Details
The Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name is part of a pattern of conduct of
registering domain names identical or confusingly similar to the names of other well-known, third-party
automotive and recreational vehicle industry brands and trademarks. ...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Once the 2LD and ccTLD extension “.com.au” is disregarded (which is appropriate in this case), the disputed
domain name consists solely of the First Complainant’s registered word trademark RIVIAN. ...
2022-11-21 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established rights in the LEGO trademark.
The disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s LEGO mark with the addition of the term “shopping”
and the gTLD “.com”.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-11-09 - Case Details
It is also apparent from the content of the
website that the Respondent is fully aware of the Complainant’s LAURENT-PERRIER trademarks, and it is a
well-established principle that registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a well-known
trademark by any entity that does not have a relationship to that mark can amount to sufficient evidence of
bad faith registration and use. ...Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that a complainant must prove each of the following:
(i) the disputed domain name registered by the respondent 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.
...
2023-02-14 - 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.
...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.
...
2023-02-13 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
In order to prevail the Complainant must substantiate that the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been met, namely:
(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; 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 second point that has to be considered is whether the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the trade mark MD FONSCARE in which the Complainant has rights.
At the second level, the Domain Name solely consists of the Complainant’s MD FONSCARE trade mark in its entirety.
...
2021-10-22 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has adduced evidence to demonstrate its established rights in the VIZIO trade mark.
...Section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 states that “mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith”. ...
2021-09-24 - Case Details