- The domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.
6.3 The Panel determines that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s service mark, COSCO.
6.4 The Panel determines that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name for the following reasons:
a.The Respondent has failed to submit any evidence that it has any right or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name at issue.
...DECISION
7.1 For the foregoing reasons, the Panel decides:
a. that the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to the service mark to which the Complainant has rights;
b. that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
c. the Respondent’s domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
7.2 Accordingly, pursuant to paragraph 4(i) of the Policy, the Panel requires
that the registration of the domain name be transferred to
the Complainant.
...
2000-03-30 - Case Details
In view of the above, the Panel finds that "cromalin.com" is identical to the trademark of Complainant and that "chromalin.com" is confusingly similar to the said trademark, especially since the added "h" only makes an insubstantial difference in the pronunciation and appearance of the word.
...Decision
In light of the foregoing, the Panel decides that the Domain Names registered by Respondent are identical (as to "cromalin.com") or confusingly similar (as to "chromalin.com") to the trademark of Complainant, that it cannot be excluded that Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in respect of the Domain Names, and that Respondent’s Domain Names may not have been registered and used in bad faith.
...
2000-06-15 - Case Details
Complainant
The domain name is identical (or confusingly similar) to the above-referenced trademarks.
The Respondent has not developed a web site using the domain name at issue or made any other good-faith use of the domain name. ...Paragraph 4 (a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following:
1) that the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and,
2) that the Respondent has no legitimate interests in respects of the domain name; and
3) the domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.
...
2000-04-26 - Case Details
The Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered as domain names a mark which is identical to or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mail Mania mark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of that domain name and that the Respondent has registered and is using that domain name in bad faith.
...Discussion and Findings
6.1 The Policy para. 4a provides that the Complainant must prove each of the following:
- that the Respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
- the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
- the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
6.2 Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant’s US trade mark Mail Mania and the Respondent’s domain name in issue MailMania.com are, to all intents and purposes, identical. ...
2000-06-15 - Case Details
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following:
- That the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
- that the Respondent has no legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
- the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...While the Panel does not concur with the Complainant’s view that the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical to the Complainant’s trademarks, the Panel finds that the domain name "Eltec.com" registered by the Respondent clearly is confusingly similar to the trademarks of the Complainant.
The website Eltec.com refers to copyrights of Domainnamesfor.com and DomainOs.com (Complaint, Annex 12). ...
2000-07-11 - Case Details
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following:
i) that the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and,
ii) that the Respondent has no legitimate interests in respects of the domain name; and
iii) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Decision
In view of the above circumstances and facts the Panel decides, that the domain name registered by Respondent is confusingly similar to the trademark LOFO in which the Complainant has rights, and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name, and that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2000-11-10 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainants contends, inter alia, that:
- The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the aforementioned trademarks of the Complainants. According to the Complainants, the relevant part of the Domain Name is , which is identical or almost identical to Complainant’s registered trademarks .NUDOMAIN and .NU DOMAIN;
- The Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. ...The Respondents content that, on that latter
date, the Respondent did not have any legal rights as the Community trademark
was only registered on November 13, 2000.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There is no question that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks registered and used by the Complainants. ...
2005-08-12 - Case Details
It is incumbent upon the Complainant to cumulatively show:
(i) that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which it holds rights; and
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name; and
(iii) that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith.
...Decision
For the foregoing reasons, the Panel finds that:
- The Domain Name registered by the Respondent is confusingly similar to the common law and registered "AT&T" trademarks to which the Complainant has rights; and
- The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
- The Domain Name has been registered and is being used by the Respondent in bad faith.
...
2002-10-24 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the owner of a number of registered trademarks for Le MERIDIEN and MERIDIEN.
...Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel has no reason to doubt Complainant’s statement that the Respondent is not an authorized agent or licensee of the Complainant’s services and has no other permission to apply for any domain name incorporating the trademarks Le MERIDIEN or MERIDIEN.
...
2005-09-19 - Case Details
The Panel is entitled to draw such inferences as it deems appropriate on the basis of Respondent’s lack of response to the complaint, and give such weight as it considers appropriate to the Complainant’s undisputed representations.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the domain name
incorporates the Complainant’s trademarks/ service marks NIS & NIS
SPARTA and is hence confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.
...The addenda “online” in the
domain name does not prevent the domain name from being confusingly similar
to the Complainant’s trademark: see Barclays Bank PLC v. Mr. Mohammed
Hassan, (WIPO Case No. ...
2004-09-13 - Case Details
It is asserted that the subject domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark.
At the time the Respondent registered the subject domain name, the Complainant had three pending trademark applications for use of his name on various merchandise. ...There is a distinction in what must be shown to establish that a domain name is identical to a complainant’s mark and what is required to show that it is confusingly similar. The Complainant appears not to make the distinction. The test for both is objective. ...
2004-08-27 - Case Details
Advanced Chemill Systems,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0827.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has furnished prima facie evidence that it is the owner of the service mark CHESTERBROOK ACADEMY in the United States, and accordingly has rights in the same.
...The Panel accordingly finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, and that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
...
2005-10-06 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Frank Gorshin is the actual birth name of the actor, Frank Gorshin, and was used by him professionally in motion picture and television since the mid 1950’s. ...The Panel finds that the actor Frank Gorshin developed common law trademark rights in his name and that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to that name.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant must show that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. ...
2005-11-11 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
6.1 Elements to be proven
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy envisages that for the Complaint to succeed, the Complainant must establish that:
(i) the Respondent’s Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark 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 Respondent’s Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...D2000-0140 notes that under the Policy, even if the respondent
is in default,
"…the complainant must prove that each of these three elements are present."
6.2 Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant claims and has established first use and ownership of the MOE GINSBURG mark. ...
2001-03-30 - Case Details
The Policy contains
in its Paragraph 4(a) the elements to be pleaded in order for a mandatory administrative
proceeding such as this one to be held: Complainant must allege that a (i) Respondent’s
domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark
in which the Complainant has rights; that (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests in the domain name; and that (iii) Respondent’s domain name has been
registered and is being used in bad faith. ...Complainant avers that
(1) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s "Cvsup"
product name referred to in Section 4 of this decision; (2) the Respondents
have no rights or legitimate interests in the trade name; and (3) the domain
name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2001-07-03 - Case Details
These elements are that:
(i)Respondent’s domain
name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which
the complainant has rights; and
(ii)Respondent has
no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii)Respondent’s domain
name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...The Panel
determines that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s
mark in the sense of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
Complainant has met the
burden of proving that Respondent is the registrant of a domain name that is
identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has
rights, and it has thus established the first of the three elements necessary
to a finding that Respondent has engaged in abusive domain name registration.
...
2001-07-03 - Case Details
These are as follows:-
(i) The Respondent’s 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 interest in respect of the
domain name; and
(iii) The Respondent’s domain name has been registered and is being used in
bad faith.
...i) The Respondents domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a
trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant submits that the three domain names in dispute are identical
to the Complainant's registered mark save for the use of the hyphens between
"reg" and "vardy" in the domain name. ...
2001-07-13 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant submits that (1) the domain name < agabekov.com> is identical 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 domain name; (3) the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Discussion and findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements that the Complainant must prove to merit a finding that the domain name of the Respondent be transferred to the Complainant:
1) The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
2) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith...
2001-08-06 - Case Details
In the instant administrative proceeding, the Respondent’s default entitles the Panel to conclude that the Respondent has no evidence to rebut the assertions of the Complainant.
6.2 Elements to be proven
However, paragraph 4(a) of the Policy envisages that for the Complaint to succeed, the Complainant must establish that:
i) the Respondent’s Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark 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 Respondent’s Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Miguel Garcia Quintas D2000-0140 (WIPO) notes that under the Policy, even if the respondent is in default,
"…the complainant must prove that each of these three elements are present."
6.3 Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant claims and has established first use and ownership of the AT&T marks. ...
2001-04-27 - Case Details
Therefore, the Panelist finds that the Domain name is identical, and in any case undoubtfully confusingly similar, to the Complainant’s trademark GILLI.
Rights or legitimate interests
The Panelist finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie evidence that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
...Decision
The Panelist decides that: (a) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark; (b) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name ; and (c) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent.
...
2001-03-20 - Case Details