A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights, through registration and use, in the marks
VENTE-PRIVEE and VENTE-PRIVEE.COM. The Panel further concludes that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to these marks. The VENTE PRIVEE mark is incorporated in its entirety in each of the Domain Names. ...
2018-07-16 - Case Details
On the basis of the arguments and evidence introduced by the Complainant, the Panel concludes as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights in ESSELUNGA by virtue of its use and registration of the same as a trade mark.
...The addition of the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".tech" does not impact the analysis of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's trade mark.
...
2018-07-16 - Case Details
In accordance with paragraph 14(b) 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 well-known ZARA trademark duly registered.
...For the reasons above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a non-exclusive list of circumstances that indicate the respondent's rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...
2018-09-12 - Case Details
The Complainants contend that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the OTTERBOX and LIFEPROOF trademarks in which the First Complainant and the Second Complainant, respectively, own rights, and that the additional descriptive word “superstore” does not affect the assessment of confusing similarity, as a descriptive term contained within a domain name does not distinguish the domain name from a complainant’s registered trademark. ...For these reasons, the Panel permits the consolidation of each Complainant’s complaint against the Respondent.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name incorporates the whole of the Second Complainant’s registered word trademark LIFEPROOF, and adds the word “superstore”. ...
2018-10-26 - 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 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 Disputed Domain Name; and
(iii) the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...The Complainant submitted a Supplemental Filing which the Panel has reviewed but essentially just restates the Complaint.
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 the Trade Mark.
...
2018-10-08 - Case Details
- The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark WHATSAPP. The addition of the descriptive terms “bulk” as a prefix and “sender” as a suffix and of the gTDL”.biz”, does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity...Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following:
(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.
...
2019-05-03 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has demonstrated rights through registration and use on the PETPLAN mark.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the PETPLAN trademark of Complainant.
The Domain Name incorporates the trademark of Complainant in its entirety. ...
2018-11-07 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The first part, “strik”, is the Danish word for “knitwear” and the Complainant produces items such as T-shirts. ...The dispute is properly within the scope of the Policy and the Panel has jurisdiction to decide the dispute.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant’s European Trademark registration number 9284191 is for ERREA’, incorporating a trailing apostrophe, as also appears in the Complainant’s name ERREA’ SPORT S.p.A. ...
2019-02-06 - Case Details
These elements will be examined in turn below.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar to a name in respect of which a right or rights are recognized or established by national law of a Member State and/or Community law
The Complainant has submitted trademark applications as amounting to a right recognized or established by the national law of a Member State and/or Community law under ADR Rules Paragraph B1(9). ...Therefore the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trademarks and that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement of paragraph B(11)(d)(1) of the ADR Rules.
...
2019-02-05 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s PERNOD RICARD mark. The Complainant has rights in the PERNOD RICARD mark by virtue of its trademark registrations. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the PERNOD RICARD mark. The Complainant has established that it is the owner of trademark registrations of the PERNOD RICARD mark in many jurisdictions.
...
2019-01-18 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP, in order to succeed in this proceeding, the Complainant must prove each of the following elements with respect to 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 (paragraph 4(a)(i)); and
(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)).
...In light of the above, the Panel concludes in accordance with paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that English shall be the language of this proceeding.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established its rights in the WINDSTAR Trademark due to long use and different registrations in a number of jurisdictions.
...
2019-10-01 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established rights in the trademark ALLEN & OVERY for purposes of standing to file its Complaint under the Policy based on the numerous trademark registrations for ALLEN & OVERY, including the ones cited in section 4 above.
...Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has established rights according to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2019-07-25 - Case Details
Complainant
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The disputed domain name incorporates well-known registered trademarks ELECTROLUX. ...Considering the above the Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, therefore, the Complainant has established its case under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2019-07-05 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark, the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, and the disputed domain names were registered and are 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.
6.3 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.
...
2019-06-18 - 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; 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 THINKCONVEYANCING trademark. The Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name is identical to this trademark.
...
2019-09-25 - Case Details
In considering these elements, paragraph 15(a) of the Rules provides that the Panel shall decide the Complaint on the basis of statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules, and any other rules or principles of law that the Panel deems applicable.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element has a low threshold, merely serving as a gateway requirement under the Policy. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant has passed the first threshold of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2019-09-20 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated that it owns numerous registered trade mark rights for its SKYSCANNER mark including the European Union designation of International trade mark registration number 900393 registered on March 3, 2006, and United Kingdom trade mark registration number 313916 registered on April 30, 2004. ...This does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity and the Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SKYSCANNER trade mark and accordingly that the Complainant succeeds under this element of the Policy.
...
2019-09-19 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...The Panel finds the mark is reproduced and recognizable 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.
Although the addition of other terms here, “ai”, 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. ...
2026-02-27 - 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. ...Complainant
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2026-01-06 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is identical
or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SANOFI marks and the mere addition of the term “the”, does not
eliminate similarity where the SANOFI mark remains clearly recognizable.
...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. ...
2026-02-25 - Case Details