Complainant
The Complainant maintains that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its ELECTROLUX trademark since it fully reproduces its trademark preceded by the defined article “el”, which is insufficient to avoid confusing similarity.
...Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, in order to succeed in a UDRP proceeding, the Complainant must first prove that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or a service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2018-05-08 - Case Details
The Panel therefore decides that the language of the proceedings shall be English.
6.2. Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well established that gTLDs such as “.biz” and “.com”, may typically be disregarded in the assessment under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trademarks. The Respondent has taken the Trademarks in their entirety and merely added a hyphen between “Red” and “Dead”, which does not distinguish this disputed domain name from the Trademarks. ...
2018-05-04 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is conventionally not taken into account 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.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Without a registered trademark, the Complainant must establish unregistered trademark rights in order to proceed. ...
2020-11-25 - 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
The first element of a UDRP complaint “functions primarily as a standing requirement” and entails “a straightforward comparison between the complainant’s trademark and the domain name”. ...The Domain Name incorporates the SARS marks in their entirety and is confusingly similar to the prominent textual elements of the SARS E FILING marks, eliminating the spaces that cannot be reproduced in the DNS address system. ...
2020-11-23 - Case Details
The Panel therefore determines it appropriate for English to be the language of the proceeding.
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established it has trademark rights in the J.CREW mark.
The Panel is also of the view that the disputed domain names , and are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s J.CREW mark. The disputed domain names incorporate the Complainant’s mark in their entirety. ...
2019-02-13 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
The Policy provides, at paragraph 4(a), that each of the following three findings must be made in order for the Complainant to prevail:
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 established rights in the PASSAGENS PROMO WWW trademark.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, disregarding the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), as the dominant feature of the trademark is recognizable in the disputed domain name. ...
2019-03-21 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has produced evidence of its trade mark registrations for CAPITEC, including the marks in respect of which full details are set out above.
As the Complainant has asserted, in considering whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s trade marks, it is established practice to disregard the applicable gTLD suffix, that is “.app” in the case of the disputed domain name, because it is a technical requirement of registration. ...
2019-05-24 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel accepts for present purposes (see comments above) that the Complainant has established that it owns the Complainant’s DEMIX trademark. ...It is well established that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), in this case “.com”, does not affect the disputed domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar – see for example Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0429.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark and hence the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been fulfilled.
...
2019-06-13 - Case Details
The Complainant asserts that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the LPG Trademark in view of it incorporating the LPG Trademark and is placed in leading position, followed by a dash and the generic word “massage”. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established its rights in the LPG Trademark due to long use and number of registrations in various jurisdictions.
...
2019-08-02 - Case Details
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant’s betting company has been working for more than twenty-five years. The Complainant is the owner of the PARIMATCH Trademark, which has been registered prior to the registration of the Disputed Domain Name.
...In view of the above, the Panel concludes that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s PARIMATCH Trademark and that the Complainant satisfied the first element of the Policy.
...
2019-09-20 - Case Details
(1) The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to their trademark.
ALLIANZ has become a well-known trademark worldwide over the past 100 years in connection with insurance, healthcare and financial services products.
...In the following, the Panel will discuss in consecutive order, if each of these requirements are met here.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The test for identity or confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy demands a direct comparison between the Complainant’’s mark and the textual string of the disputed domain name which is claimed to affect the Complainant.
...
2019-09-19 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed, the Complainant must establish each of the following elements:
(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 interest 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
When the Complaint in this matter was originally filed, the Center raised certain deficiencies, and, based on policy precedent, provided targeted guidance to the self-represented Complainant in connection with the foundation of their claims and the evidence required to support the requested relief.
...
2019-09-16 - Case Details
The Respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
2. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name;
3. ...The Respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights
The Complainant contends that the domain name is confusingly similar to:-
(a) Its trading name "Christian Salvesen".
...
2001-09-05 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
The burden for the Complainant under para. 4 (a) of the Policy is to prove:
(i) that the domain names registered by the Respondent are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names; and
(iii) that the domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
...Similarity of the Domain Name and Trademark
To succeed in this proceeding, the Complainant must show that the domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Panel invited submissions of the Claimant to clarify the legal basis on which it states that it has a trademark meeting the requirements of the UDRP and to provide support therefor.
...
2001-11-01 - Case Details
In order to be successful, the Complainant has the burden of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that all three elements are present.
6.2 Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trade mark
The domain name in dispute is . The Complainant has trade mark registration in both United States and other countries for the word "NETSCAPE".
...The Panel in any event finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s "NETSCAPE" trademark and that the Complainant has proven paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
6.3 The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name
The Complaint asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names and, as stated above, the Respondent has provided no information to the Panel asserting any right or legitimate interest it has in the disputed domain names. ...
2001-06-15 - Case Details
The domain name in the judgment of the Panel, is confusingly
similar to the marks of both Complainants. The combination of two famous marks
has a great potential to confuse internet users into believing that the website
is some sort of co-operative venture between the Complainants.
...Decision
For the foregoing reasons, the Panel decides:
(a) That the domain name registered by the Respondent is confusingly similar
to the trademark to which the Complainants both have rights;
(b) That the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of
the domain name; and
(c) That the Respondent’s domain name has been registered and is being used
in bad faith.
...
2001-04-09 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
In order for the Panel to decide to grant the remedy of transfer of a domain name to a Complainant under the Policy it is necessary that the Complainant must prove, as required by Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, that
(i) the contested 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.
...Consequently, the Panel must assess the Complaint on its merits.
Element (i) Domain Name Identical or Confusingly Similar to the Mark
In the present case, the Complainants claim unregistered mark rights in TOROMONT ENERGY. ...
2001-10-30 - Case Details
To qualify for cancellation or transfer, a Complainant must prove each element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, namely:
(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 domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...The Panel finds the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s famous registered trademark PLAYBOY. The Complainant has established this element.
...
2001-11-06 - Case Details
Complainant
1. The Domain Name Is Identical or Confusingly Similar to a Trademark or Service Mark in Which the Complainant Has Rights.
In addition to Complainant’s United States and state trademark registrations, Complainant asserts that it has common law rights in the service marks MERCANTILE, MERCANTILE SECURITIES, MERCANTILE INVESTMENT SERVICES, MERCANTILE-SAFE DEPOSIT & TRUST, and MERCANTILE BANK & TRUST. ...A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel must make its decision on the basis of the statements and documents submitted, under paragraph 15(a) of the Rules.
...
2005-02-16 - Case Details
According to Paragraph 4(a) of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Procedure Policy, The Complainant must prove that:
(i) The 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 interest in respect of the domain names; and
(iii) The domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
...Decision
In light of the foregoing, the panel decides that the domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s servicemark and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest relating to the domain names which were registered and used in bad faith.
...
2001-03-09 - Case Details