D2008-0183: “The Policy was adopted to deal with the problem of cybersquatting - that is, the registration of domain names consisting of, including, or confusingly similar to marks belonging to another for the purpose of profiting from the goodwill associated with the mark”.
5 En INTOCAST AG v. ...
2012-11-06 - Case Details
Paragraph 4 (a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove the presence of each of the following elements: (i) 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, (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and, (iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2000-11-29 - Case Details
The Respondent registered the contested
domain name without permission or authority from Complainant.
5.Parties’ Contentions
A.Complainant
i.Similarity
The Complainant contends that the contested domain name is identical
and confusingly similar to the Complainant's Marks inasmuch as that
name includes the Complainant's mark "KW".
...
2002-04-22 - Case Details
D2001-0979 dafür gehalten, dass in einem Fall, in dem ein Domaininhaber guten Grund hat anzunehmen, dass die ältere Marke unwirksam oder ihrerseits in bösem Glauben erlangt wurde, nicht bösgläubig bei der Registrierung des Domainnamens handelt:
“Further, even if such search would put the would-be registrant on notice of the Complainant’s trademark, it does not necessarily follow that bad faith should be found where the domain name and an earlier registered trademark are identical or confusingly similar. A domain name registrant may, for example, have good cause for believing that the earlier trademark registration is invalid or was itself obtained in bad faith. ...
2016-05-06 - Case Details
審理および事実認定
処理方針4条（a）項は、申立人に対し、本件ドメイン名が次の要件を満たしていることの立証を求めている：
1） 被申立人が登録したドメイン名が、申立人が権利を有する商 標また は役務標章（サービスマーク）と同一（identical）であるか、または混同を生じさせるほど類似している（confusingly similar） こと；
(2) 被申立人が当該ドメイン名についていかなる権利または適法な利益（rights or legitimate interests）も有しないこと；および、
(3) 当該ドメイン名は不正に（悪意で(in bad faith)） 登録され、かつ使用 されていること。...
2007-04-18 - Case Details
Similarity
The Complainant apparently takes the position that the contested domain name
is nearly identical and hence confusingly similar to its registered mark "COGNIGEN",
by virtue of its inclusion of the term "COGNIGEN", as to likely confuse
Internet users as to source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the
services advertised on the Respondent's web site; hence, satisfying the confusing
similarity requirement in paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2002-01-14 - Case Details
D2011-2312 ("Ultimately, however, this Panel need not to decide the question of whether the Complaint establishes that Respondent's disputed domain name is confusingly similar to marks of Complainant, since the Panel has determined that the Complaint fails on other grounds, as elaborated below.")
...
2015-08-03 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Domain Name Identical or Confusingly Similar to Complainant’s Mark
6.1 The relevant part of the domain name "sting.com" is "sting". ...
2000-07-25 - Case Details
D2008-0183 se establece: “The Policy was adopted to deal with the problem of cybersquatting - that is, the registration of domain names consisting of, including, or confusingly similar to marks belonging to another for the purpose of profiting from the goodwill associated with the mark”.
5 En Intocast AG v. ...
2013-06-11 - Case Details
D2008-0183 se establece: “The Policy was adopted to deal with the problem of cybersquatting - that is, the registration of domain names consisting of, including, or confusingly similar to marks belonging to another for the purpose of profiting from the goodwill associated with the mark”.
4 En Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, Sony Corporation v. ...
2013-11-27 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that The New York Times must prove, with respect to the domain name in issue, each of the following:
(i) The domain name in issue is identical or confusingly similar to The New York Times’ trademark in issue here, 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.
...
2000-12-11 - Case Details