Complainant
(a) Under a holistic aural or phonetic comparison of the Complainant’s Trademark and the Disputed
Domain Name, the Complainant submits that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s Trademark, on the basis of “go-mio” being the phonetic translation of GAULT MILLAU
in any language, the substantive and visual content of the Respondent’s Website, and the
Respondent’s representation that it is a Gault Millau licensee.
...The Respondent made no submissions on the
Complainant’s contention that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
Trademark.
(b) The Respondent contends that it has full rights and legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed
Domain Name by virtue of it being licensed by GAULTMILLAU SA (“Purported Licensor”) to operate
the Gault Millau brand from 2017 (“Purported License”). ...
2023-10-24 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated that it has trademark rights through the multiple trademark registrations
for the mark PRIMARK.
...As set forth in section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0: “in cases where a domain name incorporates the
entirety of a trademark […] the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark.”
(See, e.g., Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903 (“the fact that a domain name
wholly incorporates a complainant’s registered mark is sufficient to establish identity or confusing similarity
for purposes of the Policy”)).
...
2023-10-23 - Case Details
a. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the trademark NERDWALLET through registration and
use demonstrated in the record. The Panel also concludes that the disputed domain names are confusingly
similar to that mark. Each of them fully incorporates the NERDWALLET mark, and the additional word
“mortgage” (pluralized once) and, in most cases, the addition of a number, do not overcome the fact that the
mark NERDWALLET is clearly recognizable within each of the disputed domain names.
...
2024-01-19 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the mark TRADER JOE’S through registration and use
demonstrated in the record. The Panel also finds the Domain Name to be confusingly similar to that mark.
The entirety of Complainant’s mark, except for the apostrophe and the “s,” is contained within the Domain
Name. ...
2024-02-23 - Case Details
Complainants
The Complainants contend that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the
Complainants’ trademark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the
disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Accordingly, the Panel will consolidate the Complainants.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element requires the Panel to consider two issues: first, whether the Complainants have rights in a
relevant mark; and second, whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that
mark. ...
2023-07-04 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel decides to consolidate the disputes regarding the nominally different disputed domain
name registrants (referred to below as “the Respondent”) in a single proceeding.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...The Panel finds the BDO trademark is incorporated in its entirety in the disputed domain names.
Accordingly, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the BDO trademark of the Complainant
for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
...
2024-06-12 - Case Details
This is an
ulterior purpose deserving of a finding of RDNH.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-03-13 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) designations “.info” and “.biz” should be disregarded in the determination of confusing similarity. ...The dispute is properly within the scope of the Policy and the Panel has jurisdiction to decide the dispute.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied by the copies of documentary evidence produced that the Complainant has the requisite rights under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy in the trademark THE CHEESECAKE FACTORY.
...
2017-07-06 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the SANOFI mark, alleging that the disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s mark in combination with the Top-Level Domain extension “.bio”. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it has rights in the SANOFI trademark by its ownership of the above-listed portfolio of registered trademarks and the goodwill in the mark that it established through use of the mark in its global pharmaceutical business.
...
2018-01-24 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided details of its STONIQ and GROWN TO BUILD trade marks, as set out above. ...In considering whether the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade marks, it is established that the applicable gTLD suffix (“.com” in the case of the disputed domain names) should be disregarded, as it is a technical requirement of registration.
...
2018-03-27 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to divest a respondent of a disputed domain name, a complainant must demonstrate each of the following:
(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.
Under paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, "A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Setting aside the contested claim for common law protection of OXEBRIDGE, the Complainant indisputably holds a registered trademark that includes the distinctive and arbitrary element OXEBRIDGE, which is identical to the Domain Name, disregarding the ".biz" generic top-level domain name that is a necessary functional part of the URL address. ...
2018-03-05 - Case Details
Under 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 Panel finds that the Complainant has provided more than satisfactory evidence that it has established rights in its LEGO Trademark on the basis of its wide portfolio of trademark registrations worldwide, encompassing several jurisdictions.
...
2019-04-24 - Case Details
Under 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 Panel finds that the Complainant has provided more than satisfactory evidence that it has established rights in its LEGO Trademark on the basis of its wide portfolio of trademark registrations worldwide, encompassing several jurisdictions.
...
2019-04-24 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
According to Article 21(1) of Regulation (EC) No. 874/2004 (“the Regulation”) and in connection with Paragraph B(11)(d)(1) of the ADR Rules, the Panel shall issue a decision granting the remedy requested by the Complainant if the latter proves in the ADR proceeding that:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by the national law of a Member State and/or Community law and; either
(ii) the domain name has been registered by the Respondent without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or
(iii) the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar to a name in respect of which a right or rights are recognized or established by national law of a Member State and/or Community law
Paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(i) of the ADR Rules requires the Complainant to show that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by national law of a member State and/or Community law.
...
2019-03-13 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which it has rights; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element under the Policy functions primarily as a standing requirement, the intent being to assess whether the Complainant has a bona fide basis for the Complaint (The Perfect Potion v. ...
2020-06-04 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is identical or, at the least, confusingly similar to the Betty Ford Marks.
The disputed domain name incorporates the dominant element of the Betty Ford Marks and is highly likely to cause confusion.
...Respondent
A summary of the Respondent’s contentions is as follows.
The disputed domain name is not confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark. Confusing similarity under the first element involves a side-by-side comparison, not assessment of actual confusion. ...
2019-11-14 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established rights in the mark FRISBY by virtue of its registered trade marks .
...For the above reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2020-05-25 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant’s trademarks comprise either the element O2 in standard character format, or incorporating the digit “2” as a subscript or superscript character. ...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 copies of trademark registration documentation produced in evidence are accepted by the Panel as confirming the Complainant’s ownership of and rights in the trademarks for O2 listed in section 4 above.
...
2020-03-05 - Case Details
Paragraph 4a of the Policy directs that Complainant must prove each of the following:
- that the domain names registered by Respondent are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or a service mark in which Complainant has rights
- that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names, and
- that the domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
...Identity or Confusing Similarity
Complainant has, according to Paragraph 4a(i) of the Policy, to prove that the domain names at issue are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or a service mark in which Complainant has rights.
The domain names at issue are , and .
...
2002-01-24 - Case Details
vii) Complainant has failed to discharge the burden of showing that Respondent
has no legitimate right or interest, or that he has registered and is using
the domain name in bad faith.
7. Discussion and Findings
Identical or Confusingly Similar Trademark
7.1 Complainant has demonstrated substantial trademark use of "Miles&More"
both alone and in conjunction with "Lufthansa" and other indicia. ...However, for the purpose of this decision, the Panel
proceeds on the basis that such rights existed at the date of registration of
the domain name in October 1998 and that the domain name is confusingly similar
to the trademarks.
Rights and Legitimate Interests
7.2 As clearly set out in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the onus is on the
complainant to establish each of the required elements of that paragraph. ...
2002-04-05 - Case Details