Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the mark LEAFILTER arising from its registered trade mark for that term. ...
2017-01-26 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the LEGO and LEGOLAND marks in which it has registered rights. The Complainant points out that these marks have substantial inherent and acquired distinctiveness. ...
2016-12-09 - 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 DATPIFF by virtue of its registration of the trademark in block letters and in logo form in the United States of America, the European Union and under the Madrid Agreement. ...
2016-11-29 - Case Details
Under these circumstances, the Panel finds it proper and fair to render this Decision in English in this case.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated with supporting evidence that it holds a number of trademark registrations for CASH CONVERTERS in plain simple text which is identical to the disputed domain name, disregarding the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".net", which is technically required and can generally be disregarded in considering confusing similarity. ...
2016-07-12 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is a manufacturer and provider of musical instrument equipment and products and is the owner of the D'ADDARIO trade mark in the USA for its products with first use in commerce recorded as 1974.
...
2017-02-21 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not submit any response to the Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
When the ccTLD identifier ".au" and the 2LD identifier ".com" are ignored (as is appropriate in this case), the disputed domain name consists solely of the Complainant's registered trademark SANDRO. ...
2017-05-01 - 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 rights in the mark MAZARS by virtue of its registered trade marks for that term.
...
2018-03-22 - Case Details
The Complaint was filed in bad faith in an attempt to deprive the Respondent of a name to which it is entitled.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name consists of CAGI and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”.
...
2018-04-23 - Case Details
According to Respondent, he simply registered the disputed domain name because it was publicly available.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In view of Complainant’s trademark registration, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the mark GAS NATURAL FENOSA. ...
2018-04-19 - Case Details
The last emails also include an explanation from the Respondent:
“We have added this domain to start a promotional plan for EutelSat for persian languages audiences and positive reason”
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark EUTELSAT.
The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. ...
2018-02-05 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel holds that the disputed domain name is identical to the REDDIT trademark of the Complainant, and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) have been met.
...
2018-04-30 - 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 HANSARD. The trademark is identical to the Domain Name as it wholly incorporates the mark with no additional elements. ...
2018-04-30 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name begins with and contains the entirety of the Complainant’s trademarked company name, which is well known in France. ...
2019-02-05 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2024-04-16 - 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.
...
2024-04-24 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that:
a) It is the owner of the DSM Mark, having registered the DSM Mark in a number of jurisdictions including
Benelux and the European Union. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the DSM Mark since it
adds the descriptive abbreviation “-chem” to the wholly incorporated DSM Mark.
...
2024-03-11 - Case Details
Art. 3 para. 1 lit d UCA confers
protection to unregistered distinctive signs against confusingly similar signs. This protection is based on
priority of use (see e.g. Marbach/Ducrey/Wild, Immaterialgüter- und Wettbewerbsrecht, 4th ed., p. 265). ...
2024-08-26 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s trademark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed
domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
...
2024-12-05 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements, which the Complainant must satisfy in order to succeed:
(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.
...
2024-10-30 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Once the gTLD “.xyz” is ignored (which is appropriate in this case), the disputed domain name consists solely of the Complainant’s registered word trademark SKYSCANNER. ...
2020-01-22 - Case Details