Hence and
are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark SOFITEL (Accor
v. Everlasting Friendship Trust, WIPO
Case No. ...Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the allegations referenced in the headings of paragraphs A., B., and C. below.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the domain names and are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks SOFITEL.
...
2006-06-08 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark and service mark in which the Complainant has legal rights; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...Respondent
The Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainants contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is both identical to and confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has protected legal rights. ...
2010-06-11 - Case Details
Under the Policy, Complainant alleges in detail that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name; and that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Respondent therefore concedes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to trademarks of Complainant, and that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. ...
2009-11-02 - Case Details
International Electronic Communications Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's registered METSUKI mark. The relevant inquiry under the first element of the Policy is whether the mark and the domain name, when directly compared, are identical or confusingly similar. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0662. ...
2009-10-14 - Case Details
Complainant
The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights
The disputed domain name is identical to the mark FABRICOM in which the Complainant has rights.
...In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the three following elements are satisfied:
(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.
...
2009-12-23 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical, or virtually identical, and confusingly similar to its DOTHOME trademark. The disputed domain name is simply the plural form of that trademark, and is indistinguishable from it.
...Thus, this Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has been providing a real estate search engine service since some time in 2006. ...
2009-12-08 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that each of the three elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is given in the present case:
(1) The domain name is confusingly similar to the famous ELECTROLUX Marks as it uses the ELECTROLUX Marks with the single addition of an extra “x” at the end and the gTLD “.com”...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant's highly distinctive and well known ELECTROLUX Marks in which the Complainant has exclusive rights. ...
2008-12-18 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Respondent’s domain names are identical to and confusingly similar with the Complainant’s famous NBC name and mark because they fully incorporate the NBC name and mark. ...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence provided, the Complainant’s demonstrated rights in the trademark NBC are well proven.
...
2008-07-31 - Case Details
D2005-1289 (where the complainant failed to prove the second element of the Policy, “there is no need for the Panel to address the third element of the Policy”).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based upon the trademark registrations cited by Complainant, it is obvious that Complainant has rights in and to the OLGA Trademark.
As to whether the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the OLGA Trademark, the relevant comparison to be made is with the second-level portion of the Disputed Domain Name only (i.e., “olga”), as it is well-established that the top-level domain name (i.e., “.com”) should be disregarded for this purpose. ...
2008-09-17 - Case Details
Complainant
Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name which is identical to, incorporates, or at the least is confusingly similar to Complainant's registered trademarks NATIONAL and NATIONAL CAR RENTAL despite knowledge of Complainant and its rights in the NATIONAL and NATIONAL CAR RENTAL marks.
...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
For the reasons and authorities presented forth by Complainant, uncontested by Respondent, the Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name to be identical to Complainant's National and National Car Rentals marks. ...
2009-01-22 - Case Details
This generates a profit for the Respondent, according to the number of clicks.
Using a domain name which is confusingly similar to a complainant's trade mark, and which leads to websites of the complainant's competitors, constitutes bad faith. ...Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that the complainant must prove each of the following:
(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or a service in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and
(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2008-09-03 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark RED BULL in which it has rights. Notwithstanding the generic nature of the words “red” and “bull” their use in combination is distinctive. ...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 has produced adequate evidence of its rights in the trademark RED BULL at the relevant time. ...
2008-08-28 - Case Details
These three elements are discussed in turn as follows.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant provided evidence of a number of its registered service marks that all variously incorporate the term “quikbook”. ...As noted above, the Respondent has registered a domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark, and has provided no evidence of a right or legitimate interest in it. ...
2007-11-27 - Case Details
The Domain Name is identical to the verbal element of these trademarks, as it consists of the word “globul” and the suffix “.mobi”, which does not prevent the Domain Name from being identical or confusingly similar to the above mentioned trademarks. Adidas AG v. Zhifang Wu,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0032.
...Discussion and Findings
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, Complainant must prove each of the following to justify the transfer of the Domain Name:
(i) That the Domain Name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(ii) That Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) That Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith.
...
2007-11-21 - Case Details
Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The trademarks of Complainant such as BMW differ only in immaterial detail from the distinct portion of the disputed domain name.
The Panel concludes that the present domain name is confusingly similar to the BMW Trademarks in that it comprises the trademark BMW with the totally descriptive suffix “hybrid” together with the generic top-level domain name indicator “.com”.
...
2007-08-27 - Case Details
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant asserts, inter alia, as follows:
(i) that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the name of the magazine published by the Complainant and to its registered trademark; and
(ii) that the Respondents have no rights nor any legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.
...The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark STREET CHOPPER and, accordingly, paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied in this case.
...
2007-09-20 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
5.A. Complainant
5.A.1 Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name in issue is identical to the Complainant’s UNITED DOMINION registered U.S. trademark but for the joining of the two words “united” and “dominion” and the .com suffix. ...That is, the Policy expressly recognizes that other circumstances can be evidence relevant the requirements of paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and (iii) of the Policy.
6.A Identical or Confusingly Similar
The fact that the domain name in issue combines into one word the two word component of the Complainant’s UNITED DOMINION trademark does not prevent a holding of identicality under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...
2007-10-04 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the following three elements is present:
(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark; 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.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name consists of the term “südkurier”, which is included in the Complainant’s trademarks, and is confusingly similar to such trademarks.
...
2011-11-16 - Case Details
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's registered trademark GRATISBYGGETILBUD and confusingly similar to the trademark “WWW.GRATISBYGGETILBUD.DK”.
The Complainant has been the holder of the Danish domain name since March 12, 2004 and the Norwegian domain name since February 25, 2008. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is, according to the submitted evidence, the owner of the registered Danish trademarks WWW.GRATISBYGGETILBUD.DK and GRATISBYGGETILBUD. ...
2010-04-23 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends the following:
- The dominant part of the disputed Domain Name comprises the word “Lego”, which is identical to the trademark LEGO, which has been registered by the Complainant as a trademark (and used in domain names) in numerous countries all over the world including Cambodia;
- The disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark LEGO despite the suffix “kidsworld”. Moreover, the Complainant contends that this addition is more of a reason to link the disputed Domain Name with the Complainant, as the latter's primary focus is toys and other products for kids;
- The addition of the top-level domain “.com” does not have any impact on the overall impression of the dominant portion of the disputed Domain Name;
- Web users are likely to mistake the disputed Domain Name to be the Complainant's; there is a likelihood of confusion including an obvious association with the Trademark of the Complainant (initial interest confusion);
- The Complainant's trademark is at risk of being tarnished by being mistakenly connected to the website to which the disputed Domain Name resolves; the disputed Domain Name used to resolve to a website that is confusingly similar to the official LEGO website, then negotiations to sell the disputed Domain Name to the Complainant failed, the Respondent changed it to the sponsored links website;
- The Respondent has no registered trademarks or trade names corresponding to the domain name and has not been using the LEGO trademark in any other way such that would give them any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed Domain Name;
- No license or authorization of any other kind has been given by the Complainant to the Respondent, to use the trademark LEGO;
- The Trademark LEGO is a well known trademark, and as such should be awarded global protection not just in connection with a limited list of products and/or services;
- It is highly unlikely that the Respondent would not have known of the Complainant's rights in the name LEGO at the time of registration of the Domain Name suggesting that it is the fame of the trademark that has motivated the Respondent to register the disputed Domain Name;
- The Respondent is not using the disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. ...In the absence of a response by the Complainant accepting such terms for the transfer, the Panel is compelled to consider the elements and decide on the merits of the Case, where an affirmative finding under the three elements must be established.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided a long list of trademarks along with excerpts from the OHIM website evidencing the various EU Trademark registrations held by the Complainant. ...
2010-04-21 - Case Details