A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant is the owner of the trademark DAILY MAIL both by registration and
acquired reputation and that the disputed domain name is identical to the trademark DAILY
MAIL.
...The Panel finds that the Complainant has therefore met its burden of proving that the disputed domain name
is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove that the Respondent has no rights or
legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
...
2022-02-24 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its ACO trademark, because it consists only of this trademark combined with the “.army” new Top-Level Domain.
...Discussion and Findings
Pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a), the Complainant must prove each of the following to justify the transfer of 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; 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.
...
2022-02-24 - Case Details
Given the above, the Complainant submits that it should be concluded that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CANVA mark for the purposes of satisfying paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2022-01-17 - Case Details
The IQOS System has been almost exclusively distributed through the Complainant’s IQOS stores and websites, as well as selected authorized distributors and retailers.
The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the IQOS mark. The Disputed Domain Name reproduces the IQOS mark in its entirety adding a letter “i”, which is a misspelling of this trademark, and the applicable generic Top-Level-Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, which is considered a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test.
...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)(i) has been satisfied.
...
2022-01-13 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
5. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated that it owns registered trademark rights in its GOT MILK? ...As a result, the Panel finds that the Complainant has demonstrated its trade trademark rights and finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark GOT MILK?. The Complaint therefore succeeds under the first element of the Policy.
...
2011-09-29 - Case Details
Complainants
Generally, Complainants contend that:
1. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainants’ trademark VORTEX OF CREATION;
2. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and
3. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is identical in material part to a trademark owned and used by Complainants. ...
2011-09-23 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant argues that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its PIERRE FABRE marks and company names, and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
...Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to divest the Respondent of the Domain Name, the Complainant must demonstrate each of the following:
(i) the 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 Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2009-04-15 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that in the circumstances the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the SOUTH PARK marks since it appropriates the dominant element of the Complainant's mark. ...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has neither licensed nor authorized the use of its trademark to the Respondent. ...
2009-03-19 - Case Details
The Complainant further provided that the word “קוקה-קולה” in the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark COCA-COLA because of the phonetic equivalent of the Complainant's trademark COCA-COLA and the transliteration of קוקה-קולה into Latin script.
...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
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.
...
2009-02-17 - Case Details
The Complainant further provided that the word “קוקה-קולה” in the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark COCA-COLA because of the phonetic equivalent of the Complainant's trademark COCA-COLA and the transliteration of קוקה-קולה into Latin script.
...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
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.
...
2009-02-17 - Case Details
Respondent did not reply to Complainant's contentions
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has held many USPTO-registered marks for decades, and has used those marks extensively in commerce during that period. As the dominant feature of the disputed domain names is the three letter combination AAA, those domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's marks. Complainant has established the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2009-04-24 - Case Details
The Complainant claims that the domain name is confusingly similar to his unregistered service mark RUSSELL PETERS. In particular, the Complainant claims that the domain name is a purposeful misspelling (missing an “L”) of his service mark, and is phonetically identical to his service mark.
...The substantive components of the communications made by the Respondents in this proceeding have been described above.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is clear from numerous past decisions under the Policy that the Policy is applicable to an unregistered trademark or service mark in which common law rights subsist (e.g. ...
2009-04-21 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.4 The Complainant, Stuart Energy, is the registered proprietor of the STUART trademark. The Panel is satisfied that Stuart Energy has, for at least the last 10 years, used the STUART ENERGY unregistered trademark and has over that time acquired common law trademark rights in those words.
6.5 The domain name in issue is identical to the STUART ENERGY trademarks and is also confusingly similar to the STUART trademark, “Stuart” being the dominant feature of the domain name. Accordingly, the Complainants succeed in establishing the first requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2007-02-12 - Case Details
The Domain Names at issue are antithetical to the trademarks at issue, and thus cannot be confusingly similar, as no reasonable person can believe that a trademark holder would own or promote such domain names.
...Policy, Paragraph 4(a).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Given the Panel’s finding under the second element of the Policy, it is not necessary for the Panel to make a finding under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2007-01-04 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
In accordance with Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed in this proceeding and obtain the transfer of the domain name, the Complainant must prove that each of the three following elements are satisfied:
1. The domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (see below, section A);
2. ...Moreover, in accordance with Paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, if a party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any provision of, or requirement under, the Rules or any request from the Panel, the Panel shall draw such inferences therefrom, as it considers appropriate.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This question raises two issues: (1) does the Complainant have rights in a trademark or service mark; and (2) are the domain names identical or confusingly similar to such trademark or service mark.
...
2006-12-27 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its federally-registered DREAMGIRLS mark.
Complainant alleges that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. ...Respondent
Respondent does not dispute that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant asserts it has rights.
Respondent contends, however, that it has been conducting a legitimate on-line retail business utilizing the contested Domain Name since October 1995. ...
2006-08-21 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes, first, that Complainant has sufficiently shown that it has rights in its TIAA-CREF mark.
...The Panel finds that Complainant has shown that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its TIAA-CREF marks under the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Respondent does not appear to have any trademark or other intellectual property rights in the domain name. ...
2006-07-10 - Case Details
The Complainant makes the following assertions with respect to these elements:
(i) The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainant has rights.
Being of descriptive nature neither the suffix “.com” nor the words “part” and “site” prevent similarity. ...As a result thereof, the Panelist considers the Domain
Name, of which the distinctive part is identical to the PORSCHE trademarks,
confusingly similar to the PORSCHE trademarks.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The First Respondent has used the Domain Name for redirecting to a website, which appears to be a holding page. ...
2006-04-19 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
In accordance with Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed in this proceeding and obtain the transfer of the domain name, the Complainant must prove that each of the three following elements are satisfied:
1. The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (see below, section 6.1);
2. ...Moreover, in accordance with Paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, if a party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any provision of, or requirement under, the Rules or any request from the Panel, the Panel shall draw such inferences therefrom, as it considers appropriate.
6.1 Is the domain name Identical or Confusingly Similar to a Trademark in which Complainant has Rights?
This question raises two issues: (1) does the Complainant have rights in a trademark or service mark; and (2) is the domain name identical or confusingly similar to such trademark or service mark.
...
2006-03-27 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to GVSU, the trade mark in which it has rights.
The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The unchallenged evidence of the Complainant’s use of the acronym GVSU since 1987 satisfies the Panel that at an early stage following the foundation of the university the Complainant had developed a reputation and goodwill under and by reference to the letters GVSU to give it unregistered (common law) trade mark rights in respect of GVSU.
...
2006-06-29 - Case Details