Complainant asserts that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its MAGPUL and PMAG
marks as they each fully incorporate the MAGPUL mark or PMAG (in a plural form) with a generic or
descriptive word or abbreviation.
...Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed Complainant must satisfy the Panel that:
(i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which
Complainant has rights;
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and
(iii) the disputed domain names are registered and are being used in bad faith.
...
2022-10-18 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its PHOENIX CONTACT mark,
that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, and the Domain Name was
registered and used in bad faith given that it has been used for a website that impersonates the Complainant
for purposes of fraud.
...Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name is plainly identical to the Complainant’s registered PHOENIX CONTACT mark. ...
2022-10-10 - Case Details
Those elements are 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 has demonstrated that it has registered trademark rights in the mark BEYOND BY CEGEDIM. ...
2022-03-16 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed, a complainant must establish each of the following elements:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the 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 is satisfied that the Complainant owns a trademark registration for its GOVDELIVERY trademark.
...
2022-03-01 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
For this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name 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
The Complainant has uncontested rights in the Mark, both by virtue of its many trademark registrations and as a result of the substantial goodwill and reputation acquired through its widespread use of the Mark over some 60 years. ...
2022-02-24 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its ALLEN & OVERY
trademark.
The Complainant alleges that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain
name, in particular that, to the best of the Complainant’s knowledge, the Respondent is not generally known
by the disputed domain name, and that the Complainant has not granted permission to the Respondent to
register or use the disputed domain name. ...The Complainant’s ALLEN & OVERY trademark is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name,
rendering the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, and the mere
addition of a letter “s” and, in the circumstances of the present case, the word “global” in the disputed domain
name do not detract from this finding. ...
2022-08-11 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its BARRICK and
BARRICK GOLD trademarks.
The Complainant alleges that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain
name, in particular that the Respondent is not generally known by the disputed domain name, and that the
Complainant has never consented to the Respondent using its BARRICK and BARRICK GOLD trademarks
in connection with the registration of a domain name, or otherwise.
...page 3
The Complainant’s trademarks BARRICK and BARRICK GOLD are instantly recognizable in the disputed
domain name, rendering the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the
Policy.
...
2023-11-22 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its GREENPEACE
trademark.
The Complainant alleges that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain
name, in particular, that the Respondent has never been granted permission to use its GREENPEACE
trademark in connection with the registration of a domain name, or otherwise.
...Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel recognizes the Complainant’s GREENPEACE trademark to be well-known, and finds that the
Complainant has rights to its GREENPEACE trademark for the purposes of these proceedings.
...
2023-11-29 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Based on the facts and evidence introduced by the Complainant, and with regard to paragraphs 4(a), (b) and
(c) of the Policy, the Panel concludes as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate its registered rights in the POPZ
trademark.
...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2022-05-27 - 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 rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and,
(iii) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.”
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name consists of Complainant’s trademark 1XBET which has been registered in the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.date”. ...
2018-10-08 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established rights in the trademarks VIRGIN, VIRGIN HOTELS, VIRGIN ATLANTIC and VIRGIN UNITE.
...For the purpose of assessing confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.11.
The Panel finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to trademarks in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2018-11-23 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant's contentions are as follows:
Identical or confusingly similar
The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's TIGERTURF trademark because the Top-Level Domain (i.e., ".com.au") may be disregarded when the balance of a domain name is identical to a trademark.
...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's TIGERTURF trademark. The Top-Level Domain (i.e., ".com.au") may be disregarded because it is viewed as a standard registration requirement. ...
2018-10-12 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's HALLIBURTON marks, that the Respondent lacks a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. ...The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s registered HALLIBURTON marks but for the addition of “-ap” and the top-level domain “.com.” ...
2020-02-14 - Case Details
Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the CHATROULETTE mark in which Complainant has rights. ...
2018-05-23 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...Discussion and Findings
The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark acquired through use and registration.
...
2018-06-20 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
For this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name 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 or is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has uncontested rights in the Mark, both by virtue of its trademark registration and as a result of the goodwill and reputation acquired through its consistent use of the mark over some seven years. ...
2018-07-16 - Case Details
These elements are:
(i) the disputed domain name 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 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 disputed domain name is, indeed, identical to the DIMASPORT trademark, as the latter is entirely reproduced in the disputed domain name, with no change or alteration.
...
2018-08-28 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark AGCO. The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. ...For the purpose of assessing confusing similarity, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.11.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2019-04-01 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark AETNA. The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. ...For the purpose of assessing confusing similarity, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.11.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2019-04-23 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Domain Name:
(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; 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.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the mark ASURION through registration and use. ...
2019-01-24 - Case Details