Section 4(a) of the Policy entitles a complainant, such as CMGI, to seek an administrative transfer of a second level Internet domain name in the event that it "proves," to the satisfaction of the Panel, three predicates: (1) an accused domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; (2) a registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the accused domain name; and (3) a registrant’s domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
3.2. CMGI has proved each of the preceding three elements to the satisfaction of the Panel. The accused domain name, CMGIASIA.COM, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CMGI mark. Respondent has not controverted complainant’s ownership of trademark of service mark rights in CMGI.
3.3. ...
2000-08-15 - Case Details
Paragraph
4(a) of
the Policy
requires
that the
Complainant
must prove
each of
the following
three elements
to obtain
an order
that a domain
name should
be cancelled
or transferred:
(i) the
domain name
registered
by the Respondent
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 domain
name; and
(iii) the
domain name
has been
registered
and is being
used in
bad faith.
Here, since
Respondent
has defaulted,
it is therefore
appropriate
to accept
the facts
asserted
by Complainant
and to draw
adverse
inferences
of fact
against
Respondent.
A. Identical
or Confusingly
Similar
The domain
name is
identical
to a name
used by
Complainant
to provide
public services.
...
2003-08-26 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that:
(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.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Disregarding the ".com" generic part of the Domain Name, the Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING trademark.
...
2004-04-21 - Case Details
Decision
Based upon my review of all the evidence, it is clear that Complainant has
proven each of the elements set forth in Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. The domain
name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s "Olympic" marks, Respondent has
not established any rights or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name
under any of the circumstances set forth in Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, and
the facts support a determination that the domain name was registered and is
being used in bad faith.
While it is true that USOC does not own an U.S. trademark registration for
"usolympicstore" 4, the domain name in issue
is confusingly similar to USOC’s "Olympic" marks. The dominant portion of the
domain name – the term "olympic" – is identical to a number of USOC’s registered
marks.
...
2000-05-05 - Case Details
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 rights or legitimate interest in the domain name, and
3. the domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant’s registered trademark and the disputed domain name are virtually identical. ...
2005-04-22 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements that the Complainant must prove to merit a finding that the disputed domain name of the Respondent be transferred to the Complainant or be cancelled:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark (“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.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well established in decisions under the UDRP that gTLD indicators (“.com”, “.info”, “.net”, “.org”) are legally irrelevant to the consideration of confusing similarity between a trade mark and a domain name. ...
2012-02-16 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name; and that the Domain Name was registered and is used in bad faith.
...Discussion and Findings
The Complainant was able to shown the requirements specified under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy:
(i) that the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in respect of which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) that the domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.
...
2002-06-17 - Case Details
Complainant contends that Respondent’s registration and use of
the Domain Name violates all three elements of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy,
in that:
(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s
trademark rights in SCUDDER and SCUDDER FUNDS; 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.
...The Panel finds that the Domain Name "is identical or confusingly similar
to" SCUDDER and to SCUDDER FUNDS.
Based upon the content of Respondent’s web sites, it appears that Respondent’s
only interest in the Domain Name is holding it for sale, as it similarly
holds other domain names for sale. ...
2002-05-16 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
Complainant contends that the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to its mark, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names and has registered and used the Domain Names in bad faith by seeking payment in excess of its legitimate out of pocket expense and by directing Internet site to a competing web site.
...The Domain Names are all either identical to or confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has demonstrated rights.
B. No Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant has shown that Respondent is not known by the Domain Names and is not using the Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
...
2002-08-07 - Case Details
In the circumstances, there is no reason why the Panel should do so.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.11 The Panel accepts that the Domain Name is “confusingly similar” to the Complainant’s registered Israeli trade mark as that term is understood under the Policy.
6.12 The Panel does not accept it is identical. ...The Panel is aware that other panelists have held that when considering whether a mark and domain name are identical or confusingly similar, the non-textual elements can be disregarded because non-textual elements cannot be represented in a domain name; see the discussion in paragraph 1.11 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”). ...
2013-09-11 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is an essential requirement that the Complainant should demonstrate that it has rights in a trademark or service mark.
...The disputed domain name differs only by transposition of the same second and third letters. It is confusingly similar.
On balance, therefore, the Panel is prepared to find that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights, and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy are met.
...
2014-06-24 - Case Details
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the Trademarks VOLVO and VOLVO OCEAN RACE.
The first criterion has been met.
B. ...Decision
The Panel concludes that:
(a) the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademark;
(b) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name;
(c) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2011-06-15 - Case Details
In view of the above and of the fact that the wording "process system"
is to be considered merely a descriptive portion of the sign, the Panel finds
that the Complainant has proved that the Domain Name is confusingly similar
to the trademark of the Complainant according to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
6.2. ...D2000-0096).
In the instant case, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademark and identical to one of the Complainant’s company names and it is
not descriptive of the generic type of goods sold by or the business of Respondent.
...
2003-09-26 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant made the following submissions in the Amended Complaint:
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is a well-known company in Portugal. The Complainant was founded in 1972 in Espinho, Portugal. ...In the NameJet auction, the Respondent competed against 21 other parties and ultimately winning the bidding after 52 bids.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Respondent accepts that the Complainant holds valid trademarks.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The disputed domain name is comprised of descriptive terms.
...
2021-06-02 - Case Details
As such submits the Complainant, the mark and the disputed domain names are virtually identical, which renders them confusingly similar.
In addition, says the Complainant, each of the disputed domain names wholly incorporates one of the Complainant’s registered trade marks adding only the generic words “club”, “online”, “casino” and “zal” (word “zal” is a transliteration of Russian word “зал” and it means “hall”) and mixing some of them with Arabic numerals, that are considered irrelevant under the Policy and that do not affect the confusing similarity of domain names and trade marks. ...As a consequence the Panel finds that each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to one or other of the Complainant’s registered trade marks as set out above.
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
It is apparent that the Complainant has made a very substantial use of its Vulcan marks both in the Russian Federation and in neighboring countries and in certain countries in Europe as a result of operating in the Russian Federation and in certain European countries with more than 230 Вулкан and/or Vulkan branded gaming clubs and more than 6,300 gaming machines deployed throughout Europe.
...
2016-12-27 - Case Details
The burden for Complainant, under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, is to show:2 (i) that each disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; (ii) that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and (iii) each disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is undisputed that Complainant has rights over the EXCELLENCE GROUP LUXURY RESORTS trademark.
...
2013-03-05 - Case Details
On November 17, 1999, Respondent registered the domain name KZZO.COM, which is confusingly similar to the mark KZZO. The addition of the generic top-level domain (gTLD) name ‘.com’ is without legal significance. ...Respondent has argued that because he intends to use the disputed domain name for an Internet-based business involving the retail sale of sports apparel, the name should not be considered confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark (that is primarily used to identify Complainant’s radio broadcast services). ...
2000-11-03 - Case Details
Gilson, et al, Trademark Protection and Practice (© 1996, Matthew Bender & Co., Inc.) states:
"When one trademark is said to be 'confusingly similar to another', it is so similar to the other that, when it is used on products the purchasing public is likely to be confused. The term [confusingly similar] is simply another way to express the fact that confusion is likely. "
In assessing whether sufficient similarity exists between two marks, Gilson, at § 5.02[1], states: "If a word trademark sounds similar to the plaintiff's mark courts often find likelihood of confusion, especially if the associated product is typically ordered orally. ...
2000-11-21 - Case Details
The Parties Contentions
6.1 The Complainant
6.1.1 Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant's case is that the domain name in issue is identical with the
first category of ESPIRITO SANTO registered trademarks and confusingly similar
to the second category of registered marks.
6.1.2 Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant maintains that the Respondent's true motive is to register
speculatively domain names with a view to selling them for a profit to the trademark
owner. ...For example, the domain name confusingly similar to a registered trademark for MICRO.
- The Response cites 2 Decisions in support of its case on confusing similarity.
...
2002-02-04 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that:
(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.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant relies on common law rights to the Complainant’s marks, to which it has a pending trademark
applications for both the KHADI PRAKRITIK PAINT word mark and PRAKRITIK PAINT device marks. ...
2022-06-08 - Case Details