Complainant
Summarizing its legal contentions, Complainant alleges that (1) the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark, (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and (3) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, all in violation of the Policy. ...
2015-01-27 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its QUINCY and QUINCY COMPRESSOR trademarks, that Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, and that Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...
2010-12-17 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not respond to the Complaint.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated rights in its trademark STARDOLL. The disputed domain name is, apart from the addition of the domain dominator ".com.au", identical to Complainant's trademark. ...
2012-02-02 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complaint or its contentions
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name contains the entirety of the Complainant’s trademark; the addition of domain suffixes does not dispel the identicalness and confusing similarity of the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s marks. ...
2012-12-21 - Case Details
The Panel has therefore decided not to consider the Complainant’s supplemental filing, and even if it had been considered, it would have made no difference to the outcome of this case.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant’s registered trademark consists of the words JOSEF FRANK. This trademark is included in its entirety in the disputed domain name, which is entirely devoid of any other relevant elements. ...
2013-11-26 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts for the purposes of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy:
(i) that the disputed 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 respect of the domain name; and
(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2014-07-11 - Case Details
Thus, for the Complainant to succeed it must prove, within the meaning of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, 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.
...
2023-11-14 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO
Overview 3.0”), section 1.1.3, the Complainant’s trademark rights must be in existence at the time the
Complaint is filed. ...
2022-11-15 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant’s evidence establishes that the Complainant’s name enjoys strong recognition in his
industry, and that it has become a distinctive identifier of the Complainant’s services conferring common law
rights (WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview
3.0”) at section 1.5). ...
2023-05-25 - 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 demonstrated with supporting evidence that it has rights to the trademark ARES. ...
2023-08-07 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainants must satisfy with respect to each of
the Domain Names:
(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.
...
2022-05-13 - Case Details
Therefore, proceeding in
English would be fair and procedurally efficient given the circumstances.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated with supporting evidence that it has rights to the trademark VGW in a
number of jurisdictions.
...
2023-04-25 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established trademark rights in the term “ELECNOR”.
The disputed domain name includes the Complainant’s trademark ELECNOR in its entirety.
...
2023-11-16 - Case Details
page 3
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the
Complainant’s trademark and the Domain Name. ...
2023-09-05 - Case Details
The Panel will consider the content of these communications in deciding this matter.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant asserts and has proven common law rights in PORTLAND SOCIETY PAGE by her continuous use of that designation since 2011 (as evidenced inter alia by the Portland Society Page archive of posts maintained on the alternate domain name the Complainant owns) for her online service and former ownership of the disputed domain name. ...
2015-12-04 - Case Details
If you require any additional information, I will be happy to provide."
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is obvious that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's famous mark LE LIDO. ...
2015-12-02 - 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 contains Complainant's registered and well-known trademark ALDI its entirety, and the fact that a domain name wholly incorporates a complainant's registered mark is generally sufficient to establish identity or confusing similarity for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2016-04-22 - 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 HOTELSCOMBINED by virtue of its registered trade mark for that term.
...
2017-02-07 - Case Details
No other communications were received from the Respondent; thus the Respondent did not reply to the contentions of the Complaint.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name contains the entirety of the Complainant’s very well-known trademark MARLBORO. ...
2017-06-16 - Case Details
Further, Respondent contends that Complainant has failed to carry its burden to show bad faith registration and use as it has failed to provide any evidence of bad faith.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To satisfy paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainant must show that it has trademark rights. ...
2018-09-28 - Case Details