Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s COSMOPROF mark. The Complainant’s COSMOPROF mark is incorporated in the disputed
domain name in its entirety. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-04-22 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the trademark STARLINK through registration
demonstrated in the record. The Panel also concludes that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to that
mark. The addition of the letters “tv” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity, since the entirety of
the mark STARLINK is clearly recognizable within the Domain Name.
...
2023-02-27 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated that it owns and has rights to the trademark registration for the mark ICE
MILLER.
...For the foregoing reasons the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s ICE MILLER trademark, and that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of
paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2023-03-17 - Case Details
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules directs the Panel to decide the 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
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Accordingly, the
disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO
Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
While the addition of other terms here, “luxury” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements,
the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the
disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2023-09-18 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has demonstrated rights through registration and use on the IQOS mark.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name that incorporates Complainant’s IQOS mark in its entirety plus the
additional letters “hk”, short for Hong Kong, is confusingly similar to the IQOS trademark of Complainant.
The addition of the letters “hk” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.
...
2024-04-09 - Case Details
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
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...The Re...
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-02-12 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Factual Background
5. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
6. Decision...
2023-10-26 - Case Details
Complainant
Key contentions of the Complaint may be summarized as follows:
The Complainant and its trademark TARMAC are well-known in the field of construction and building
materials.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, as it incorporates the
TARMAC mark adding the term “trader”. ...Accordingly, this Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademark, and the first element of the Policy under paragraph 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
...
2023-07-31 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy sets forth the following three requirements, which have to be met for this Panel
to order the transfer of the disputed domain names to the Complainant:
(i) the disputed domain names are 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 names; and
(iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
...In accordance with paragraph 14(a) of the Rules, if the Respondent does not submit a Response, in the
absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall decide the dispute based upon the Complaint.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2023-08-22 - Case Details
The Complainant states that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its SNIFFIES trademark,
because they incorporate this trademark in its entirety with the addition of the descriptive words “hub” and
“app”.
...page 4
On this basis, the Panel concludes that it is appropriate to issue the present decision on the substance of the
dispute.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2023-06-07 - 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
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2024-01-04 - Case Details
Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the
language of the proceeding shall be English.
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Discussion and Findings
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-01-12 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the COURIR trademark.
The Disputed Domain Name is identical to the COURIR trademark. It is well established that the country
code Top-Level Domain ("ccTLD”), in this case “.io”, does not affect the Disputed Domain Name for the
purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar. See, for example, Government
Employees Insurance Company (“Geico”) v. Privacy.cc / Bulent Tekmen, WIPO Case No. ...
2024-02-02 - Case Details
case=D2021-0152
page 4
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...The Panel also concludes that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to
that mark. The Domain Names entirely incorporate the ONLYFANS mark and add the words or characters
“xx”, “69”, “mr”, “like”, “list”, “leak”, or “leaks”. ...
2024-02-28 - Case Details
This Panel finds that the First, the Second and the Third Complainant jointly comprising the Complainant
have a specific common grievance, and it is equitable and procedurally efficient to allow consolidation in the
circumstances of this case.
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...This Panel finds that the First, the Second and the Third Complainant jointly comprising the Complainant have a specific common grievance, and it is equitable and procedurally efficient to allow consolidation in the circumstances of this case.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-10-29 - Case Details
Namely, the Complainant must prove that:
(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (paragraph 4(a)(i)); and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name (paragraph 4(a)(ii)); and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (paragraph 4(a)(iii)).
6.3 However, under paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, where a party does not comply with any provision of the Rules, the Panel shall "draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate".
...Given this, the Panel concludes that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights and that the Complainant has made out the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2018-04-20 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided evidence of ownership of valid trademark registrations for the figurative mark IVI, as highlighted in the paragraphs above.
...In view of the above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which it has established rights according to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2018-02-14 - 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 and the Top-Level Domain extension “store”. ...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 it established through use of the mark in its global pharmaceutical business.
...
2018-01-23 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the it’s registered FERRING marks as the disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s FERRING marks with the mere deletion of only one letter, that is, the “i”. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Ownership of a trademark registration is generally sufficient evidence that a Complainant has the requisite rights in a mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.2.1. ...
2020-04-01 - 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.
...See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.5.1.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant indisputably holds a registered V-GUARD trademark. The Domain Name is almost identical, lacking only a hyphen, which has little effect visually or aurally. ...
2018-11-19 - Case Details