Complainant
The Complainant says that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its TARMAK trade
mark in that it identically reproduces its mark
The Complainant says also that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the
disputed domain name. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided details of a number of the registered trade marks it owns for TARMAK,
including the registration in respect of which full details have been provided above, which thereby establish
its rights in this mark.
...
2022-09-07 - 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; 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.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the 3CHI trademark. The Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name is identical
to this trademark. ...
2023-03-28 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
(i) Identical or confusingly similar
Complainant submits that as a result of its continuous and widespread use of the ORBITRAP mark, the
ORBITRAP brand is widely recognized.
...page 4
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has demonstrated that it has trademark rights in its ORBITRAP trademark, both through
registration and use.
...
2023-03-27 - Case Details
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 4
The Complainants must prove in this administrative proceeding that each of the aforesaid three elements is
present in order to obtain the transfer of the disputed domain name.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainants have established rights in the POKERSTARS trademark, duly registered in several
jurisdictions, including China where the Respondent is located (Annex 12 to the Complaint).
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name reproduces the Complainants’ mark in its entirety and is
therefore confusingly similar under the Policy which, as recognized by past UDRP panels involves a
“comparison of the domain name and the textual components of the relevant trademark to assess whether
the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name” (WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on
Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, “WIPO Overview 3.0”, section 1.7).
...
2022-10-18 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the trademark CORNING through longstanding
registration and widespread use demonstrated in the record. The Panel also concludes that the Domain
Names are confusingly similar to that mark. The mark CORNING is clearly recognizable within both Domain
Names.
...
2022-12-06 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name incorporates Complainant’s trademark YODI in its entirety.
The generic Top-Level Domains (“gTLD”) “.com” is disregarded, as gTLDs typically do not form part of the
comparison as they are required for technical reasons (Rexel Developpements SAS v. ...Malte Bering
Case No. D2022-3250
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith...
2022-12-05 - Case Details
Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that Complainant has trademark rights in the AMGEN Mark by virtue of the trademark
registrations mentioned above.
The Panel also finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's
AMGEN Mark. The Domain Name incorporates the Mark in its entirety and merely adds the non-distinctive
“usa”. ...
2022-11-22 - Case Details
Furthermore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademark ACCENTURE despite the addition of the terms “canada”, “hr”, and “benefits”.
...It is well-established practice to disregard the Top-Level Domain, in this case “.com”, when assessing
whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark in issue. Société Anonyme des Eaux
Minerales d’Evian and Societe des Eaux de Volvic v. ...
2022-11-04 - Case Details
In accordance with paragraph 14(a) of the Rules, if the Respondent does not submit a Response, in the
absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall decide the dispute based upon the Complaint.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the exclusive licensee of the Brazilian trademark registrations for KAVAK and
KAVAK.COM trademarks owned by UVI TECH, S.A.C.I. ...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name reproduces the KAVAK trademark in its entirety with the
addition of the terms “car” and “leiloes” 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”. ...
2022-11-02 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark and trade
name TETRA PAK as it incorporates the entirety of the well-known trademark and trade name TETRA PAK
in combination with the word “certificados”. ...This dispute resolution procedure is accepted by the domain name
registrant as a condition of registration.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established trademark rights as set out in section 4. Thus, the Panel is satisfied that
the Complainant has rights in the TETRA PAK trademark for purposes of the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2022-11-16 - Case Details
Although the
Respondent has a right to establish a website for the purpose of legitimate criticism and commentary, he
may not do so via a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark and
domain name. The Respondent is not using the disputed domain name to offer any goods or services but is
merely using it to criticize the Complainant. ...The Complainant also notes that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its own
domain name. However, a domain name, in itself, cannot ground a claim under the Policy where it has not
become a distinctive source identifier for a complainant. ...
2022-10-28 - Case Details
Namely, the Complainant must prove
that:
page 4
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the
Complainant has rights (paragraph 4(a)(i));
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (paragraph
4(a)(ii)); and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (paragraph 4(a)(iii)).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the owner of numerous SODEXO trademarks.
The disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s trademark SODEXO in its entirety.
...
2022-07-21 - Case Details
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s ARAMEX mark as it incorporates the Complainant’s registered ARAMEX trademark entirely.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-06-14 - Case Details
In Knot We Trust LTD, WIPO Case No. D2006 0340.
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. ...FRANK LIPMAN mark established, the remaining
question under the first element of the Policy is whether the disputed domain name (typically disregarding
the Top-Level Domain such as “.com”) is identical or confusingly similar with Complainant’s mark. See B &
H Foto & Electronics Corp. v. Domains by Proxy, Inc. / Joseph Gross, WIPO Case No. ...
2022-05-20 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark
or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant owns the trademark MALL OF
EGYPT and MALL OF and has registered it in many countries. ...The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark MALL OF
EGYPT as it incorporates it in its entirety. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s trademark MALL OF combined with names of countries. The addition of the generic Top-
Level Domain (gTLD) “.online” is irrelevant in determining confusing similarity.
...
2022-06-23 - Case Details
In accordance with paragraph 14(a) of the Rules, if the Respondent does not submit a Response, in the
absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall decide the dispute based upon the Complaint.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established its rights in the registered CARVANA trademark.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly
similar to the Complainant’s trademark. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP
Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), sections 1.7 and 1.9.
...
2023-02-02 - Case Details
Complainant
In summary, the Complainant’s contentions are as follows:
Identical or confusingly similar
The disputed domain name consists of the essential feature of the Complainant’s mark. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element assessment under the Policy is typically conducted in two parts. ...
2022-12-23 - Case Details
In addition, Respondent asserts, with respect to the first element of the Policy (whether the Domain Name is
identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights), that the registered trademark
in force at the time Respondent acquired the Domain Name in 2013 had “legal effect” for the European
Union only.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the trademark PLAYDEAD through registration proven
in the record. ...
2022-12-20 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends as follows:
The Complainant’s first registration for the mark KYNDRYL predates the registration of the disputed domain
names by 42 days. The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the KYNDRYL trademark in which
the Complainant has rights, because they incorporates this trademark in its entirety, and the addition of the
Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) is required for technical reasons and can be ignored for the purposes of
assessing confusing similarity.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant owns trademark registrations for its KYNDRYL trademark.
...
2023-02-10 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has demonstrated rights through registration and use on the IQOS mark.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name that incorporates Complainant’s IQOS mark in its entirety plus the
additional terms “premium” and “partner” is confusingly similar to the IQOS trademark of Complainant. The
addition of the terms “premium” and “partner” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.
...
2023-02-09 - Case Details