Paragraph 4 (a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following:
(a) 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,
(b) that the respondent has no rights or no legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and,
(c) the domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.
1. ...
2000-06-30 - Case Details
Discussion
The onus is on the Complainant to prove each of the three elements set out in paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN policy, as follows:-
(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.
...
2000-10-25 - Case Details
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of
the following:
(1) that the Domain Name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly
similar to a trademark or service in which the Complainant has rights;
(2) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to
the Domain Name; and
(3) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2002-01-31 - Case Details
The Complainant only seems interested in domain names if someone else takes them first.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established rights in the mark “Paisabazaar” by virtue of its registered trade marks .
...In particular, the webpage is dominated by definitions of the dictionary terms comprised in the disputed domain name, similar to those cited in the Response.
Nor has the Respondent produced any evidence which links him to the “old art effects” industry. ...
2019-01-15 - Case Details
Due to the deterioration of the relationship between the parties, the Complainant arranged for a similar product to be produced for it by a third party, and proceeded to begin selling that product under the name "Snoreeze". ...Discussion and Panel Findings
This section is structured by reference to the elements required by paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
5.1 Domain Names identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s Marks
The domain names in dispute are , and . ...
2001-05-18 - Case Details
It maintains that such use in relation to such similar services to those offered by the Complainant cannot be in good faith and that the substantive part of the disputed domain name does not correspond to any name or mark used by the Respondent.
...This issue is central to the dispute and the Panel discusses it below.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has demonstrated that it owns Community Trade Mark number 9801705 dating from March 10, 2011 for the word mark SWING4IRELAND and that this qualifies as a "Protected Identifier" for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2014-08-21 - Case Details
The principal contentions relevant to this proceeding are (1) that Complainant lacks prior rights in the mark; (2) that Respondent has a legitimate interest in the name; and (3) that Respondent registered and used the domain name in good faith.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is identical to a mark in which Complainant claims rights.
...In contrast, Respondent submits the Second Declaration of Pat Corrao, its owner, stating:
“[Complainant’s] pattern and practice is to advise its distributors to register all domain names incorporating terms similar to [Complainant’s] products . . .
[Complainant] specifically suggested that [Respondent] register any domain names the [Respondent] wished that incorporate terms similar to [Complainant’s] products . . .”
...
2008-06-05 - Case Details
Accordingly, while under paragraph 13.2 of the Rules, a panel may draw appropriate inferences from a respondent's default, the complainant in such circumstances must still satisfy the panel that the three elements required under the policy in question – whether the UDRP or the IEDR Policy – have been met.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The first element to be established by a complainant is that it has rights in a protected identifier to which the domain name is identical or misleadingly similar.
...Where the domain name which is identical or misleadingly similar to a geographical indication has been used, in good faith, by the registrant before such geographical indication was protected in the Island of Ireland.”
...
2015-06-23 - Case Details
Carl Johansson,
WIPO Case No. D2013-0807.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
"Where the complainant holds a nationally or regionally registered trademark or service mark, this prima facie satisfies the threshold requirement of having trademark rights for purposes of standing to file a UDRP case." ...In the Respondent's favor, nothing in the record or a quick search by the Panel reveals any other circumstance that the Respondent has engaged in similar conduct. It has not been a respondent in any other Policy proceeding, and, so far as the record reflects, it is not an aggregator of domain names. ...
2018-03-16 - Case Details
Discussion and Finding
The Complainant is required by paragraph 4(a) of the Policy to establish:
(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 by the Respondent.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s registered trademarks. The Complainant therefore succeeds under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2008-02-13 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to 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.
...While often these are helpful, they are neither controlling nor binding on this Administrative Panel.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is common-ground that the subject domain names are identical to the marks of the Complainant, but the Respondent asserts that the registrations of the marks are vulnerable because the marks are generic.
...
2006-08-16 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
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.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established its rights in the ATLANTIC trademark, by virtue of the Trademarks.
...
2007-10-18 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the Respondent is required:
“…to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding in the event that a third party (a “complainant”) asserts to the applicable Provider, in compliance with the Rules of Procedure, that
(i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.”
...The dispute is properly within the scope of the Policy and the Panel has jurisdiction to decide the dispute.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has produced documentary evidence of its registered trademark IPIRANGA in Brazil and certain South American Countries. ...
2011-05-16 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trade marks SHIELD and NVIDIA SHIELD in which it has rights. The Complainant’s SHIELD mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. ...The Panel therefore finds it apt to rule that English should be the language of the proceeding.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established it has rights to the trade mark SHIELD. Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy only requires that the Complainant show it has rights in the trade mark or service mark, not necessarily in the jurisdiction where the Respondent is based or located. ...
2015-03-20 - Case Details
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following:
(i) that the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is 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 disputed domain name; and
(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
6.1. ...Accordingly, the Panel proceeded to issue the Decision.
6.2. Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is not clear whether the Complainant relies on a claim to registered or unregistered rights. ...
2022-02-11 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to divest the Respondent of the disputed domain name,
the 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.
1 For ease of reference, the Panel will use “the Respondent” to refer to Ms. ...page 4
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
Based on the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark
or service mark for the purposes of the Policy, being the two registered trademarks identified in section 4
above. ...
2023-08-18 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed in this administrative proceeding, 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 was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...In considering these elements, paragraph 15(a) of the Rules provides that the Panel shall decide the Complaint on the basis of statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any other rules or principles of law that the Panel deems applicable.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
As explained in paragraph 1.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”), the test for confusing similarity under the UDRP involves a straightforward visual or aural comparison between the trademark at issue and the domain name itself to determine likelihood of Internet user confusion. ...
2015-10-05 - Case Details
Substantive Issues
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the Complainant must prove each of the three following elements:
i. the Disputed Domain Name is identical to 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 the Disputed Domain Name;
iii. the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has submitted detailed evidence that it is the owner of numerous trademarks consisting of the words “Music Maker”. ...
2015-10-09 - Case Details
Considering also the procedural fairness, the
Panel has exceptionally taken all these submissions into account as part of the record.
6.2. Substantial Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2025-04-16 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the
Policy have been satisfied, namely:
page 4
(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.
...In any event, if the Complainant’s supplemental submission was not accepted, the Panel would have
reached the same result as set out below.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2024-08-05 - Case Details