The Complainant further notes that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s PORSCHE trade marks.
The Complainant asserts that it has not authorized the Respondent to use the PORSCHE mark and/or the Porsche name, and there is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has used, or undertaken any demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
...Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceedings shall be English.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel acknowledges that the Complainant has established rights in the PORSCHE trade mark in many territories around the world.
...
2021-10-08 - Case Details
Based on this representation, the Panel has accepted and considered Complainant’s Additional Submission.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the GROUPON Mark by virtue of the United States trademark registrations cited above.
...Where a domain name incorporates complainant’s mark, this is sufficient to establish that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar for purposes of the Policy. See Kabushiki Kaisha Hitachi Seisakusho (d/b/a Hitachi Ltd) v. ...
2020-03-23 - Case Details
Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
By submitting printouts taken from various official trademark databases, Complainant has shown to the satisfaction of the Panel that it owns trademark rights in the ASPHALT 9 LEGENDS trademark. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel notes that the registrant of record of the disputed domain name, i.e. ...
2020-04-21 - Case Details
Substantive Matters
To succeed, in accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must satisfy the Panel that:
(1) The Disputed Domain Name is identical with or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(2) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and
(3) 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 IPAKTORO trademark.
The Disputed Domain Name is identical to the IPAKTORO trademark. ...
2020-10-23 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s CROCS trademark in its entirety. The country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) “.com.ua” does not affect the disputed domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant’s first use and first registration of its CROCS mark predates any use the Respondent may have made of the disputed domain name as a trade name, domain name, mark, or common name. ...
2020-08-18 - Case Details
Complainant
The following is a brief summary of the main assertions of the Complainant.
The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
Continuously used since at least 1925, the RHEEM Mark has served as a distinctive identifier associated with the Complainant for nearly a century. ...A complainant must prove each of these three elements to succeed.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant clearly has rights in its RHEEM mark.
Ignoring the generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.support” (as the Panel may do for comparison purposes), the Domain Name consists only of the RHEEM Mark and nothing more.
...
2020-10-13 - Case Details
The disputed domain names are, according to the Complainant, confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, creating a likelihood of confusion given the reproduction of its trademark which is clearly recognizable as the leading element of the disputed domain names, not adding any distinctiveness thereto the addition of the descriptive terms “help”, “verified”, “verify”, “blue”, “badge” and “center”.
...This Panel is satisfied, in view of the evidence submitted and on balance that the disputed domain names are indeed subject to a common control and that consolidation would be fair and equitable to all Parties.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established its rights in the INSTAGRAM trademark (Annex 9 to the Complaint).
...
2020-10-02 - Case Details
Substantive Matters
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;
(iii) the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the JASHANMAL registered trademark. The Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name is identical to this trademark. ...
2020-10-19 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the trademark PAYEX through registration demonstrated in the record. The Panel also concludes that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to that mark. The addition of the letters “ou” is of little consequence, as the PAYEX trademark is clearly recognizable within the Domain Name.
...
2021-11-15 - Case Details
Complainant
The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s COVERMYMEDS trade mark. They comprise misspellings of the Complainant’s COVERMYMEDS mark. ...The Panel agrees that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s COVERMYMEDS trade mark.
The Panel accordingly finds that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been satisfied.
...
2021-10-21 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Names incorporate Complainant’s trademark COLLER CAPITAL in its entirety. ...D2002-0122).
The Panel finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the COLLER CAPITAL mark of Complainant.
Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2022-02-01 - Case Details
The Complainant argues that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly
similar to its BETTE trademark and that the Respondent has no permission to use that mark, is not known by
that name, and has no rights or legitimate interests in it. ...The Panel will take the supplemental filing into account for the limited purpose of addressing that issue.
6.2 Substantive Issues
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”.
...
2022-05-09 - 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 MAN GROUP PLC in which the Complainant has rights.
At the second level, the Domain Name solely consists of the Complainant’s MAN GROUP PLC trade mark
(which is also the exact corporate name of the Complainant) in its entirety.
...
2022-05-04 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant is the owner of the trademark DAILY MAIL both by registration and
acquired reputation and that the disputed domain name is identical to the trademark DAILY
MAIL.
...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
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.
...
2022-02-24 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its ACO trademark, because it consists only of this trademark combined with the “.army” new Top-Level Domain.
...Discussion and Findings
Pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a), the Complainant must prove each of the following to justify the transfer of the disputed domain name:
(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.
...
2022-02-24 - Case Details
Given the above, the Complainant submits that it should be concluded that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CANVA mark for the purposes of satisfying paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2022-01-17 - Case Details
The IQOS System has been almost exclusively distributed through the Complainant’s IQOS stores and websites, as well as selected authorized distributors and retailers.
The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the IQOS mark. The Disputed Domain Name reproduces the IQOS mark in its entirety adding a letter “i”, which is a misspelling of this trademark, and the applicable generic Top-Level-Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, which is considered a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test.
...Accordingly, this Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, and the first element of the Policy under paragraph 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
...
2022-01-13 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the
Trade Mark, that 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.
...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 Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2026-01-14 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-02-16 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-02-11 - Case Details