It says that the disputed domain name wholly incorporates its mark and
is therefore confusingly similar to it.
The Complainant notes that since its registration, the disputed domain name has not resolved to an active
website but only generates a browser error message and has provided evidence from the Wayback Machine
of the lack of use by the Respondent. ...This is because, in particular, the disputed domain name is for all intents and purposes confusingly similar to
the Complainant’s GITHUB trade mark. Due to the disputed domain name not being active, the Complainant
says that it is not aware of the goods or services offered by the Respondent. ...
2023-02-10 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has produced sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it has registered trademark rights in
the mark SERCO in numerous jurisdictions including the European Union, Canada, the United States,
Australia and Singapore. ...Turning to whether the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the SERCO trademark,
the Panel observes that the Disputed Domain Name is comprised of: (a) an exact reproduction of the
Complainant’s trademark SERCO; (b) followed by the gTLD “.live”.
...
2023-02-28 - Case Details
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 4
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The test for the first element requires a reasoned but straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s
trademark and the disputed domain name.
...The Panel is thus satisfied that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademarks for the purposes of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or
legitimate interests, and finds no indication in the evidence that the Respondent could claim rights or
legitimate interests of his own in the term “Chemsours”. ...
2023-03-09 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy sets forth the following three requirements which have to be met for this Panel
to order the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant:
(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 Complainant 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 Complainant has established rights in the FRANCE TV trademark, duly registered.
...
2023-02-16 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are all confusingly similar to its VRBO
mark. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. ...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. ...
2024-02-12 - 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...
2023-10-04 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that:
- the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which it has rights. The
Complainant says that the first portion of the disputed domain name is identical to its MICHELIN mark.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2023-08-31 - Case Details
page 3
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...The Respondent is using a Domain Name that is
confusingly similar to the IQOS Mark to sell products, be they genuine or otherwise, in competition with the
Complainant and without the Complainant’s approval and without meeting the Oki Data test.
...
2023-08-29 - Case Details
Based on the evidence and arguments submitted, the Panel’s findings are as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has shown that it has valid rights in the mark MILLE MIGLIA, based on
its intensive use and registration of the same as trademarks in a number of jurisdictions.
Moreover, as to whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
mark, the disputed domain name consists of only the Complainant’s registered trademark for MILLE MIGLIA,
followed by the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), “.info”. ...
2023-08-25 - Case Details
Based on the evidence and arguments submitted, the Panel’s findings are as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has shown that it has valid rights in the mark UNIQA, based on its
intensive use and registration of the same as trademarks in a number of jurisdictions.
Moreover, as to whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
mark, the disputed domain name consists of only the Complainant’s registered trademark for UNIQA,
followed by the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), “.info”. ...
2023-08-25 - Case Details
The Complainant 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
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Accordingly, the
disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO
Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
While the addition of the term “games” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel
finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed
domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2023-08-21 - Case Details
Complainant
(a) The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademark. The
Complainant’s Trademark is reproduced in its entirety in the Disputed Domain Name. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights in the Complainant’s Trademark, based on its various
trademark registrations such as those listed in Section 4.
...
2023-09-28 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the AREVA trade mark in
which the Complainant has rights as the disputed domain name incorporates the exact AREVA trade mark
with the addition of a hyphen “-” and the term “france” after the AREVA trade mark and this does not prevent
the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trade mark.
...In light of these circumstances, the Panel finds that it would not be unfair
to proceed in a language other than that of the Registration Agreement and the Panel is satisfied that the
Language of Proceedings should be English.
6.2 Substantive Analysis
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2023-09-26 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the
MCDONALD’S marks, in particular, to the MCD mark, because it merely consists of a “tripling” of this mark.
...Therefore, this
trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is
confusingly similar to the MCD mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
Based on the available record, the Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.
...
2023-09-25 - 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.
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...
2024-01-05 - Case Details
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
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Factual Background
5. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2023-11-17 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Accordingly, the
disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
It is also well accepted that a generic Top-Level Domain, in this case “.cam”, is typically ignored when
assessing the similarity between a trademark and a domain name. ...
2023-10-17 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to the submitted evidence, the Complainant is the owner of the registered trademark
HALLIBURTON. ...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 with that trademark or its owner can by itself create
a presumption of bad faith (see WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.1.4).
...
2023-11-02 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Disregarding the gTLD, the Panel finds the Complainant’s trademark is recognisable within the disputed
domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of
the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
Based on the available record, the Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.
...
2023-06-09 - Case Details
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its NINE WEST trademark,
because it incorporates the distinctive element “nine” of this trademark, followed by the descriptive term
“discount”.
...page 3
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2023-06-06 - Case Details