International Electronic Communications Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel initially addresses whether the Complainants Premji and Wipro may assert standing based on the AZIM PREMJI-formative marks registered to the AZIM PREMJI entities. ...When the relevant trademark is recognizable in the disputed domain name, the domain name normally will be considered confusingly similar to the mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
3 See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.2 and cases cited therein....
2018-07-23 - Case Details
The Complainant says the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark (hereafter, "trademark") in which the Complainant has rights. ...The Supplemental Filings need not be and will not be taken into account.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant must first establish within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy that there is a "trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights". ...
2018-07-13 - Case Details
The Complainant requests that the Domain Name be transferred to it on the following grounds:
(i) The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (first element (i) of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy)
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its CALVIN KLEIN trademark. ...These elements are that:
(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 interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) the respondent’s domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2018-08-17 - Case Details
Consequently, the Panel must proceed with an assessment of the Complaint on its merits.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is only required to show that it has relevant rights at the time the Complaint is filed. ...The Panel therefore finds that the Domain Name <10daily.com.au> is essentially identical and confusingly similar to the trademark TEN DAILY, in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4a(i) of the Policy.
...
2018-12-12 - Case Details
Complainant
A summary of the Complainant’s contentions is as follows:
The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade marks.
The Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the relation to the disputed domain names.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
As explained in section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2019-03-25 - Case Details
In the present case, therefore, the Panel considers it appropriate to admit the Complainant’s supplemental filing.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element that the Complainant must establish is that the disputed domain name is identical with, or confusingly similar to, the Complainant’s trademark rights.
There are two parts to this inquiry: the Complainant must demonstrate that it has rights in a trademark and, if so, the disputed domain name must be shown to be identical or confusingly similar to the trademark.
The Complainant has proven ownership of the registered trademarks for SBARRO referred to in section 4 above.
...
2018-10-02 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the GULA GULA trademark.
...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.
...
2018-11-21 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s LINGUA FRANCA mark, representing that the Respondent competes directly with the revived Lingua Franca magazine. ...International Electronic Communications Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s LINGUA FRANCA mark, in which the Complainant has established rights. ...
2019-06-11 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant makes the following contentions:
A1. The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), Rules, paragraphs 3(b)(viii), (b)(ix)(1))
On the basis of the above-mentioned trademark registrations, the Disputed Domain Name registered by the Respondent is identical to the Complainant's registered trademark BRITISH AIRWAYS.
...The panel must decide whether the complainant has introduced elements of proof, which allow the panel to conclude that its allegations are true.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well established in previous UDRP cases that, where a domain name incorporates a complainant's registered mark, this may be sufficient to establish that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2009-03-19 - Case Details
It says the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its PROXXON trademark and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, which was registered or is being used in bad faith.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In determining whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark, country code top level domain suffixes are to be ignored: see BT Financial Group Pty Limited v. ...
2010-03-01 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts exclusive rights in the trademark SE RACING, and contends that the disputed domain name is identical and confusingly similar to its mark. According to the Complainant, its SE RACING mark is well known and famous in the United States, and the Respondent would have known or at least had constructive notice of the SE RACING mark prior to registering the disputed domain name, which appropriates the Complainant’s mark in its entirety.
...International Electronic Communications Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered SE RACING mark. ...
2008-02-20 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark ACOMPLIA in which it has rights. The domain name consists of the Complainant’s trademark ACOMPLIA with the suffix “24”. ...The Complainant says the mere holding of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark can be considered as disrupting to the business of the trademark owner. ...
2008-05-27 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to its DANZAS trade mark for the following reasons:
1. ...Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trade marks in which Complainant has rights.
The Panel finds for Complainant on the first part of the test.
...
2008-05-20 - Case Details
The Complainant alleges is the Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to its mark within par 4(a)(i) of the Policy, arguing that, for this purpose, the addition of the suffix “.com” is to be disregarded.
...However, these differences are only minor, and there is no doubt that the composite domain name is still confusingly similar to the services mark. The Panel also accepts the Complainant’s submission that the “.com” suffix to the end of the domain name is simply part of the Internet address and does not add “source-identifying significance”: see further Bang & Olufsen a/s v. ...
2006-11-28 - Case Details
Since 20 to 30 percent of the population suffers from insomnia, and Ambien is the leading prescription sleep aid in the USA, there is no doubt that Ambien is a well-known product in the USA.
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the AMBIEN trademarks in which the Complainant has rights.
The Domain Name consists of the Complainant’s trademark with the adjunction of the generic word “buy” and the ccTLD “.ws”.
...So, rather than distinguishing the Domain Name from the Complainant’s
trademark, the addition of the generic word “buy” to the trademark
makes the Domain Name confusingly similar to the trademark. Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company v. Mark Overbey, WIPO
Case No. ...
2006-02-09 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the domain name is identical to Complainant's trade and service marks MOTA-ENGIL.
...The Panel thus finds to be met the requirement that the domain name in question is identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks of the Complainant.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
As a result of the facts considered by the Panel as proven, it is deemed that the Respondent is not the owner of any trademark rights or other rights of any nature in the expression “Mota-Engil”. ...
2009-07-27 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is identical to its registered ALIEN SPORT trademark and its pending U.S. trademark application for ALIENSPORT.COM, and confusingly similar to its other ALIEN trademarks.
It avers that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
...All three elements must be present before a complainant can succeed in an administrative proceeding under the Policy.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has shown that it owns registered trademark rights in the word mark ALIEN SPORT, registered under U.S. federal trademark registration no. 1722170.
...
2009-03-06 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainants have provided evidence of ownership of the trademark JOHN COOPER WORKS.
...D2000-0429 “the specific top level of the domain name such as ‘.net' or ‘.com' does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar”; Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B. v. Peter Ojo,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1770 “the accused domain name is legally identical to Complainant's trade name CHEVY CHASE BANK”).
...
2009-01-29 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's BLACKBERRY mark within the meaning of 4(a)(i) of the Policy as the Disputed Domain Name incorporates the Complainant's BLACKBERRY mark in its entirety.
...The Panel is satisfied that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the BLACKBERRY mark. Previous panels have decided that a domain name which wholly incorporates a complainant's registered mark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2009-01-23 - Case Details
This Panel does not need to, and therefore does not, make a finding on whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark PARVI PARIS VILLE NUMERIQUE.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...The Policy itself expressly recognizes that, where the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant's trademark and the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, in certain circumstances bad faith use of a domain name alone is sufficient to entitle the complainant to a remedy. ...
2009-11-30 - Case Details