Accordingly, these disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the mark FEEL+ for
the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
...Respondents
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-12-10 - Case Details
See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected
UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.3.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...It is well accepted by UDRP panels that a gTLD, such as “.one”, is typically ignored when assessing whether
a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark.
The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.
...
2024-11-20 - 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...
2024-11-11 - Case Details
In light of the foregoing, there is no doubt that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to
registered trademarks in which Complainant has established rights.
The Respondent has no legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. ...Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2024-11-11 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or at least confusingly similar
to the Complainant’s mark. It further contends that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the
disputed domain name, as the Complainant never authorized the Respondent to include its BANCA
MEDIOLANUM trademark in the disputed domain name. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-11-08 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
As a preliminary procedural matter, the Panel did not consider an unsolicited supplemental filing made by the
Complainant.
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...
2024-09-09 - Case Details
The fact that the disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety creates
sufficient similarity to render it confusingly similar.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that
Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, and Complainant has not given Respondent
authorization to use its MOUNJARO mark. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of
the Policy (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1).
...
2024-10-08 - Case Details
At the same time, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, if a party, in the absence
of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any provision of, or requirement under, the Rules, or any
request from the Panel, the Panel shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s registered trademark
MARTHA STEWART.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has not produced, and there is no evidence of the types of circumstances set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy that might give rise to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name on the part of the Respondent in these p...
...
2024-08-19 - Case Details
Further, according to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel may draw such inferences from Respondent’s
failure to submit a Response as it considers appropriate.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
First, 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...
2024-09-23 - Case Details
page 4
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...
2024-09-12 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the marks MOLSON, COORS, and MOLSON COORS
through registration and use demonstrated in the record. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-10-16 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel decides to consolidate the disputes regarding the nominally different disputed domain
name registrants (referred to herein as “the Respondent”) in a single proceeding.
6.2. Substantive issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondents
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-10-11 - Case Details
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. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-10-03 - Case Details
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 4
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...
2024-10-01 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has shown that it has registered rights in the Trade Marks. The Domain Name is
confusingly similar to the Trade Marks as it incorporates the EQUINOR Trade Mark in its entirety.
...Therefore, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is
confusingly similar to the Trade Marks in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate
rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.
...
2024-10-01 - Case Details
Complainant
(i) The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name reproduces an unregistered mark, in which it
has rights, and is confusingly similar to the unregistered mark insofar as the disputed domain name contains
the unregistered mark in its entirety and that the addition of the “france” term after the unregistered mark is
not capable of dispelling the confusing similarity.
...Requirements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To succeed, in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complainant must satisfy the Panel that
the disputed domain name is identical with or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the
Complainant has rights.
...
2022-12-01 - Case Details
The Complainant must prove in this administrative proceeding that each of the aforementioned three
elements is present in order to obtain the transfer of the disputed domain name.
page 4
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established its rights in the registered GLENFIDDICH trademark.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s GLENFIDDICH trademark in
its entirety, only adding an “s” at its end, and is therefore confusingly similar to it. It is well accepted that the
first element functions primarily as a standing requirement and that the threshold test for confusing similarity
involves a “reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the complainant’s trademark and the
disputed domain name”. ...
2022-11-29 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the
Policy have been satisfied, namely:
(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
page 4
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules directs the Panel to decide the 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
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the disputed domain name
is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2022-09-20 - Case Details
Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar as it is identical to and solely
consists of Complainant’s LAUDROLAB mark.
Complainant contends that Respondent does not have a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as
Respondent has no rights in LAUNDROLAB and has simply used the disputed domain name to redirect
Internet users to a third party website at .
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Ownership of a trademark registration is generally sufficient evidence that a complainant has the requisite
rights in a mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...
2022-09-06 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the
Domain Name and the Additional Domain Name:
(i) the 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 in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
page 4
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Domain Names, that incorporates Complainant’s ENEL GREENPOWER mark along
with a hyphen (“-”), is confusingly similar to the ENEL GREENPOWER trademark of Complainant.
...
2022-09-06 - Case Details