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
Jose Luis Fernandez Mendoza, supra), sumamente similar al contenido del sitio web asociado al nombre de dominio en disputa , lo que permite asumir que los nombres de dominio en disputa y aquellos materia de los casos Ternium México S.A. ...The use of the disputed domain name as an email address for the deceitful obtention of a payment by trying to impersonate Complainant by using a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark is enough evidence of bad faith”. En el mismo sentido The Coca-Cola Company v. ...
2020-01-13 - 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
The Respondents had registered the said Domain Name to cash upon the reputation of the Complainant and to bar the Complainant from using the said Domain Name. The said Domain Name is identical and confusingly similar to the trademark BENZER in which the Complainant has rights and the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the said Domain Name. ...Elements to be proven
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy envisages that to succeed, the Complainant must establish that:
(i) the Respondents’ domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) the Respondents’ domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2001-04-30 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Under the Policy, in order to prevail, a complainant must prove the following three elements of a claim for transfer or cancellation of a respondent’s domain name:
(i) that the domain name 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 the disputed domain name; and
(iii) that the respondent’s domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...It is important to remember that not all domain name holders are cybersquatters.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Respondent’s Domain Name and Complainant’s IRONARC mark are identical. ...
2008-02-07 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.
...B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name comprises the Complainant's United States registered trade mark WALKY DOG (words), the geographical acronym ‘usa' and the generic domain suffix, the last of which may be ignored for the purposes of assessing identity and confusing similarity for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2010-03-15 - Case Details
It follows from the above that the Complainant does not have exclusive use
of or rights to the word SCORPIONS
5.2.2 Identical or Confusingly Similar
Subject to the forging, the Response does not deny that the domain name is
identical to the Complainant's SCORPIONS registered trademark.
5.2.3 Laches
The domain name in issue was registered in November 1996. ...That is, the Policy
expressly recognises that other circumstances can be evidence relevant
to the requirements of paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and (iii) of the Policy.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.5 The Respondent does not dispute that the domain name and the SCORPION
trademark are identical. ...
2001-12-10 - 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:
(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.
...C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The panel need not dwell on this topic as both of the Parties are agreed that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark in all material respects. ...
2020-08-27 - 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
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
Discussion and Findings
To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied:
(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.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Clearly the registered trademarks for the word mark INVAR cited by the Complainant, as noted in the Factual Background section above, are identical to the disputed domain name, bearing in mind that it is customary to disregard the top level domain “.com” in cases under the Policy. ...
2012-06-18 - Case Details
The Complainant alleges that the Respondent’s domain name www-ctv.com is
...confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known trademark CTV in that the prefix "www" is a universally known acronym for the world-wide web, and it will therefore be assumed by consumers that the domain name is in fact functionally identical in sound, appearance, and in the idea suggested thereby, to the Complainant’s trademark CTV.
...According to the UDRP, Paragraph 4(a)(i), is the domain name identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights?
In this instance, the Respondent has inserted "www-" in front of the letters CTV to form its .com domain name. ...
2000-12-21 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant develops, produces and markets natural and homeopathic medicines and cosmetics. ...This practice can result in the addition of unnecessary complication and cost to what is intended to be a relatively quick and inexpensive procedure.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the mark WALA by virtue of its registered trade marks as well as unregistered trade mark rights deriving from its use of that term since the 1930s.
...
2013-07-22 - Case Details
Consistently
with the decisions on “cyberflight”, therefore, the Former Registrant remains a Respondent for the purposes
of this proceeding.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has proven that it owns registered trade marks for NOKIA. The disputed domain name is
identical to the Complainant’s registered trademark (disregarding the “.au” ccTLD as a functional component
page 6
of the domain name system). ...The first element that
the Complainant must establish is that the disputed domain name is identical with, or confusingly similar to,
the Complainant’s name, trade mark or service mark.
On the question of identity or confusing similarity, what is required is simply a visual and aural comparison
and assessment of the disputed domain name itself to the Complainant’s trade marks: see for example,
GlobalCenter Pty Ltd v. ...
2023-12-12 - 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
As a threshold matter, the Panel must decide whether Complainant has standing to bring a UDRP action
based on unregistered trademark rights.
...It is the consensus view of UDRP panels that, where a domain name incorporates the entirety
of a trademark, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
It is the well-established view of UDRP panels that a generic Top-Level Domain such as “.com” is viewed as
a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity
test (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1, and cases cited thereunder).
...
2023-04-04 - Case Details