Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s Mark with the addition of the gTLD suffix “.net”. ...
2011-08-22 - Case Details
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant prove each of the following three elements to obtain a decision that a domain name should be either cancelled or transferred:
(i) 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) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name; and
(iii) The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2013-03-27 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, 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; 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.
...
2013-10-25 - Case Details
On this basis, the Panel determines the language of proceedings to be English.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is composed of the Complainant’s registered Trade Mark KARICARE and gTLD “.asia”.
...
2013-10-14 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to his name Adam Leitman Bailey; that the Complainant has common law rights to his personal name because the Complainant’s personal name is used in commerce and is a distinctive identifier associated with the Complainant and the Complainant’s services; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as there is no relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent nor has the Complainant given any authorization to the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademark; and that the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.
...
2013-09-02 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondents did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated that it has developed a very substantial business and web presence under its MYPROTEIN brand and its website at “www.myprotein.com” since inception in 2004. ...
2014-02-18 - 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
The Domain Name is plainly identical to the Complainant’s registered BIOMERIEUX mark. ...
2022-08-01 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP, 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.
...
2023-05-30 - Case Details
In order not to unduly delay the proceedings, the Panel determines under Article 6 of the Policy, Articles 8 and 31 of the Rules, and Paragraph 18(a) of the WIPO Supplemental Rules that the language of the proceeding in this case shall be English.
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar to the Complainant’s Name or Mark in which the Complainant has Civil Rights or Interests
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has trademark rights upon inter alia China Trademark No. ...
2022-03-11 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for
confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the
Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. ...
2023-03-14 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, 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 respect of the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name has been
registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2023-11-01 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its registered trade mark PENTAIR; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as there is no relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent nor has the Complainant given any authorization to the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trade mark; and that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2015-09-15 - Case Details
As the Complaint was filed in English and the Response was filed in German, and since the Panelist is a German native speaker, there is no need to translate the Response into English and the Panel will issue this decision in English.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The second level of the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's trademark. ...
2015-11-30 - Case Details
What I need doing now to close the issue with this domain."
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name begins with and contains the entirety of the Complainant's trademark and company name, both of which have been established to be well-known. ...
2015-11-11 - Case Details