The disputed domain names are, according to the Complainant, confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, creating a likelihood of confusion given the reproduction of its trademark which is clearly recognizable as the leading element of the disputed domain names, not adding any distinctiveness thereto the addition of the descriptive terms “help”, “verified”, “verify”, “blue”, “badge” and “center”.
...This Panel is satisfied, in view of the evidence submitted and on balance that the disputed domain names are indeed subject to a common control and that consolidation would be fair and equitable to all Parties.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established its rights in the INSTAGRAM trademark (Annex 9 to the Complaint).
...
2020-10-02 - 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;
(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 JASHANMAL registered trademark. The Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name is identical to this trademark. ...
2020-10-19 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Names incorporate Complainant’s trademark COLLER CAPITAL in its entirety. ...D2002-0122).
The Panel finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the COLLER CAPITAL mark of Complainant.
Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2022-02-01 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which it has rights because: (i) the disputed domain name is composed of the elements “Sodexo” and “net”. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark SODEXO in which the Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is not a licensee of, or otherwise affiliated with, the Complainant, and has not been authorized by the Complainant to use its SODEXO trademark. ...
2021-08-06 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or at least confusingly similar to marks owned by the Complainant and the Complainant’s company name as the disputed domain name consists of the name of the Complainant’s North American corporation known as “Sylvania”. ...Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the OSRAM trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant has satisfied the first element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2021-08-23 - Case Details
Furthermore, the Complainant believes that the Respondent is also the registrant of other domain names which correspond to identical or confusingly similar variations of well-known third-party trademarks such as , and (Annex 14 to the Complaint), as well as the named Respondent in past UDRP cases such as Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. ...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 SALESFORCE trademark.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s SALESFORCE trademark entirely. ...
2021-08-19 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark BOOK OF RA; the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Substantive Elements of the .UA Policy
The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the .UA Policy in order to prevail.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element of paragraph 4(a) of the .UA Policy requires a complainant to establish first, that it has rights in a trademark, and secondly, that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
...
2021-08-18 - Case Details
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name incorporates Complainant’s trademark SODEXO in its entirety. This is sufficient to establish confusing similarity (Magnum Piering, Inc. v. ...D2002-0122).
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the SODEXO mark of Complainant.
Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
...
2021-08-18 - Case Details
Substantive Issues
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements, which the Complainant must satisfy in order to succeed:
(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 Panel finds that the Complainant has therefore met its burden of proving that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has failed to file a formal Response in accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5.
...
2021-09-15 - 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
(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 name, trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2021-09-10 - 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 non-exclusive licensee of the Brazilian trademark registrations for SOMPO and SOMPO-variations owned by Sompo Japan Insurance Inc. in Brazil (Annex 7 to the amended Complaint).
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name reproduces the textual component of the SOMPO trademark in its entirety with the addition of the terms “leilao” and “seguradora” 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”. ...
2021-09-29 - Case Details
The Complainant further notes that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s PORSCHE trade marks.
The Complainant asserts that it has not authorized the Respondent to use the PORSCHE mark and/or the Porsche name, and there is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has used, or undertaken any demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
...Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceedings shall be English.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel acknowledges that the Complainant has established rights in the PORSCHE trade mark in many territories around the world.
...
2021-10-08 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove, each of the following three elements required hereunder by a preponderance of evidence:
i. the disputed domain name is identical 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
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2021-12-17 - 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:
(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.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that Complainant has unregistered rights in the common law trademark BEYOND PROTOCOL through use and consumer recognition since 2018 demonstrated in the record. ...
2021-12-14 - Case Details
Based on this representation, the Panel has accepted and considered Complainant’s Additional Submission.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the GROUPON Mark by virtue of the United States trademark registrations cited above.
...Where a domain name incorporates complainant’s mark, this is sufficient to establish that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar for purposes of the Policy. See Kabushiki Kaisha Hitachi Seisakusho (d/b/a Hitachi Ltd) v. ...
2020-03-23 - Case Details
Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
By submitting printouts taken from various official trademark databases, Complainant has shown to the satisfaction of the Panel that it owns trademark rights in the ASPHALT 9 LEGENDS trademark. ...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel notes that the registrant of record of the disputed domain name, i.e. ...
2020-04-21 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant maintains that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the PEPEE trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
According to the Complainant, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, as the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use the PEPEE trademark, and “Pepee” is not a common word or a generic name, but a distinctive sign registered as a trademark.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided evidence and has thus established its rights in the PEPEE trademark, registered in 2010. ...
2019-11-06 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant claims that the Domain Names are identical of confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. The Complainant claims to own an International trademark registration for the DR. ...The Complainant contends that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Dr. KOFFER trademark despite other terms in the Domain Names, because they fully incorporate it.
...
2019-10-14 - Case Details
Under paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, “A Panel shall decide a 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 first element of a UDRP complaint “functions primarily as a standing requirement” and entails “a straightforward comparison between the complainant’s trademark and the domain name”. ...Instead, it makes this summary conclusion concerning bad faith:
“Panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a famous or well‐known trade mark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. ...
2019-10-10 - Case Details
Complainant
The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s COVERMYMEDS trade mark. They comprise misspellings of the Complainant’s COVERMYMEDS mark. ...The Panel agrees that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s COVERMYMEDS trade mark.
The Panel accordingly finds that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been satisfied.
...
2021-10-21 - Case Details