A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has provided evidence establishing that it has trademark rights in the MICHELIN mark through registrations in numerous jurisdictions including in India, where Respondent is located, thereby satisfying the threshold requirement of having trademark rights for purposes of standing to file a UDRP case. ...In comparing Complainant’s MICHELIN mark with the disputed domain name, , the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with Complainant’s mark. The disputed domain name contains Complainant’s MICHELIN mark in its entirety. ...
2020-12-11 - 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
The Complainant does not rely upon registered trademark rights. Rather, the Compliant relies upon common law trademark rights as it is entitled to do.
...The Panel accordingly concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s FARMLAND trademark, disregarding the Top-Level Domain “.com”.
The Complainant succeeds on the first element of the Policy in relation to the disputed domain name.
...
2021-07-09 - Case Details
Complainant
Key contentions of the Complaint may be summarized as follows:
The disputed domain name contains sufficiently recognizable aspects of the ONLYFANS mark, only deleting the letters “nly” from its middle, being confusingly similar to this trademark.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...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) has been satisfied.
...
2021-04-29 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark KARTINA TV in which the Complainant has rights as it reproduces the trademark in its entirety with the mere addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.net”.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
As highlighted above, the Complainant relies on trademark registrations for KARTINA TV which are registered in the name of the Complainant’s managing director Andreas Reich (as per Annex 4 to the Complaint) and on which the Complainant claims trademark rights as exclusive licensee.
...
2021-03-04 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the SÉZANE mark.
...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant has satisfied the first element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2021-04-16 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends as follows:
Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant’s TECHNOGYM trademark is identical to the disputed domain name. The addition of the country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) “.ir” is irrelevant with respect to the test as it is viewed as a standard registration requirement.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established rights in its TECHNOGYM registered trademark as outlined in the factual background section above. ...
2021-02-24 - Case Details
Complainant
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. The disputed domain name entirely incorporates the Complainant’s trademark. ...According to section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, the domain name will normally be considered identical or confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing. The Panel finds that in the present case the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety.
...
2021-03-19 - Case Details
The only communications received from the Respondent are mentioned above in section 3 of this Decision.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has furnished evidence that it has trademark rights in the mark TATA.
...The Panel, therefore, concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant has therefore succeeded in establishing the first element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2021-03-18 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Because the Complainant has supplied evidence of its trademark registration with the EUIPO for the E LECLERC mark, the Panel finds that the Complainant has the necessary rights in that mark for the purposes of Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proved that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The consensus of prior Policy panels is that a complainant need present only a prima facie case that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name, and then the burden of evidence production falls on that respondent to furnish evidence that it does possess those rights or interests. ...
2021-04-12 - 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
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.
6.2. Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts that the Complainant demonstrated that it has the rights in the GAMINATOR Trademark in view of a number of registrations in different jurisdictions, including Russian Federation, and long use of its GAMINATOR Trademark.
...Previous UDRP panels have recognized that incorporation of a trademark in its entirety is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered mark; see bridport & cie S.A v. Privatewhois.net, Private Whois bridportadvisory.com,
WIPO Case No. ...
2021-06-28 - Case Details
Complainant asserts that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights because the Disputed Domain Name is identical to the alpha-string of Complainant’s word trademark, excepting the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.software”. ...Rules, paragraph 14(b).
6.2 Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name <1xbet.software> is identical to Complainant’s 1XBET word and stylized trademarks. ...
2021-05-31 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the trademark PACHA through registration demonstrated in the record.
The Panel also concludes that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the PACHA mark. The Domain Name entirely incorporates the PACHA mark, and adds the descriptive word “group”. ...
2021-05-19 - Case Details
In light of these circumstances, the Panel concludes that it will (1) accept the Complaint in English and the Respondent’s communication in Korean if there were any; (2) consider any relevant materials in Korean; and (3) issue a decision in English.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts: first, whether the Complainant has rights in a relevant trademark and, second, whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
...The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety, and the use of the gTLD extension “.net” may be disregarded when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark (see Proactiva Medio Ambiente, S.A. v. Proactiva,
WIPO Case No. D2012-0182).
...
2021-05-18 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its LIEBHERR trademark because it incorporates the LIEBHERR trademark in its entirety. ...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant owns trademark rights in LIEBHERR that precede the registration of the disputed domain name by many years. ...
2021-05-12 - Case Details
As to the registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, the Complainant argues that previous UDRP panels have consistently found that the registration and use of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. ...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 evidenced that it is the non-exclusive licensee of the Brazilian Trademark Registration No. 827939213 for TOKIO MARINE SEGURADORA” & device, owned by Tokio Marine Holdings, Inc.
...
2021-07-21 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
I. Identical or Confusingly Similar
That it is an investment company founded in 2011, with offices in Uruguay, Buenos Aires, Mexico City, Montevideo, and São Paulo.
...Discussion and Findings
The Complainant must prove that the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been met:
(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 with respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2021-07-20 - 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