All these factors point to the owner of the disputed domain name, not its agent the privacy service, as the party with which Complainant has a grievance.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Turning to the merits, Complainant has established the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...
2009-04-09 - 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 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 and is being used in bad faith.
...
2002-03-18 - Case Details
To qualify for cancellation or transfer, a Complainant must prove each element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, namely:
(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 domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2002-11-19 - Case Details
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. ...
2008-05-07 - Case Details
Pursuant to paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(i)-(iii) of the ADR Rules, the Panel finds that:
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right or rights
are recognized or established by national law of a Member State and / or European Union law.
...
2024-06-24 - Case Details
The Panel has authority to decide the dispute examining the three elements
in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, taking into consideration all of the relevant evidence, annexed material and
allegations, and performing some limited independent research under the general powers of the Panel
articulated, inter alia, in paragraph 10 of the Rules.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the MONSTER ENERGY mark by virtue of its trademark registrations as well
as its continuous use of this mark on the market since 2002.
...
2022-10-27 - Case Details
Pursuant to Article 21(1) of the Commission Regulation (EU) No. 874/2004 and Paragraph
B(11)(d)(1)(i)-(iii) of the ADR Rules, the Panel finds that:
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right or rights
are recognized or established by national law of a Member State and / or European Union law.
...
2022-05-04 - Case Details
Pursuant to Article 21(1) of the Commission Regulation (EU) No. 874/2004 and Paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(i)-(iii) of the ADR Rules, the Panel finds that:
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right or rights are recognized or established by national law of a Member State and / or European Union law. ...
2021-04-01 - Case Details
Taking all these circumstances into account, the Panel finds that it is appropriate to exercise its discretion and allow the proceedings to be conducted in English
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (the “WIPO Overview 3.0”) the applicable generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) in a domain name (e.g., “.com”, “.club”, “.nyc”) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element of the confusing similarity test. ...
2021-02-18 - Case Details
Pursuant to Article 21(1) of the Commission Regulation (EU) No. 874/2004 and Paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(i)-(iii) of the ADR Rules, the Panel finds that:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right or rights are recognized or established by national law of a Member State and / or Community law;
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
...
2018-11-15 - Case Details
The fact that the Complainant has also registered the business name Viva La Gong Festival is irrelevant.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The TLD ".com" has no source identification function and cannot serve any trademark purpose.
...
2003-04-10 - Case Details
Debate y conclusiones
De conformidad con lo preceptuado en el párrafo 4(a) de la Política, para prevalecer en sus pretensiones, la Demandante tiene que acreditar todos y cada uno de los extremos siguientes: (i) cada nombre de dominio en disputa es idéntico o similar hasta el punto de crear confusión con respecto a una marca de productos o de servicios sobre la que la Demandante tiene derechos; (ii) el Demandado no tiene derechos o intereses legítimos respecto de los nombres de dominio en disputa; y (iii) los nombres de dominio en disputa han sido registrados y se utilizan de mala fe.
...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”.
3 Véase Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. ...
2015-04-10 - Case Details
“A domain name consisting of a trademark and a negative term is not confusingly similar because Internet users are not likely to associate the trademark holder with a domain name consisting of the trademark and a negative term.”
3） 从汉语拼音的角度理解，争议域名“baidu”部分并非唯一对应汉字中的“百度”。
...至于被投诉人所提出的“A domain name consisting of a trademark and a negative term is not confusingly similar”，在本案的情况并不适用，因为“ventures”一字并非negative element，例如“sucks”。
因此，专家组认为争议域名与投诉人的上述BAIDU商标混淆性相似。...
2017-03-14 - Case Details
Por lo que respecta al Nombre de Dominio el Experto considera que el mismo es claramente susceptible de ser considerado como confusamente similar con el nombre profesional del Demandante. Además debe tenerse en cuenta que el mismo se compone de una combinación entre el apellido del Demandante y el dorsal que utilizó durante años para competir (y que, de hecho, ha registrado como marca comunitaria).
...Albert Agustinoy Guilayn
Experto Único
Fecha: 12 de agosto de 2009
1 Traducción no oficial del texto inglés original: “Registration of a domain name before a complainant acquires trademark rights in a name does not prevent a finding of identity or confusingly similarity. The UDRP does not make specific reference to the date of which the onwer of a trade or service mark acquired rights. ...
2009-08-24 - Case Details
- Further, as noted in Paragraph 8(b), RTI offers a "domain name recovery" service to its customers. This service is similar to a trademark watching service, a type of service now offered by many different companies throughout the world. ...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 interest in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) The Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2001-11-28 - Case Details
In support of this contention, the Response states, inter alia:
(a)the Complaint expressly admits and concedes that its acronym, if widely known at all, is only known in England, and that its mark would only be strong enough to prevent another deaf children’s charity from using its name or a name similar to it. Accordingly, it is clear that if the Complainant has a common law trade mark at all, which is not conceded but denied, it is simply not at all known in the United States and can freely be used by anyone other than a deaf children’s group even in the case of a registered trade mark, it is impossible to impute bad faith registration where the mark is not registered or known where the Respondent resides;
(b)there is absolutely no evidence that the Respondent should have ever heard of the Complainant, which operates a charity exclusively in England. ...The singular term ‘Complainant’ is used hereafter
to refer to the first Complainant.
7.2Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to Complainants’
trade mark
The domain name in dispute is . The Complainant claims
that it has common law trade mark rights in the initials "NDCS",
being the acronym of the name by which the Complainant is commonly known
- the National Deaf Children’s Society. ...
2002-04-24 - Case Details
La Política en su párrafo 4(a) establece los tres elementos que debe probar la Demandante para obtener la cancelación o transferencia del nombre de dominio en disputa:
(i) que el nombre de dominio en disputa es idéntico o similar hasta el punto de crear confusión con respecto a una marca de productos o de servicios sobre la que el Demandante tiene derechos; y
(ii) que el Demandando no tiene derechos o intereses legítimos respecto del nombre de dominio en disputa; y
(iii) que el nombre de dominio en disputa ha sido registrado y se utiliza de mala fe.
...D2008-0382 (“when a respondent merely adds generic or descriptive terms to a distinctive trademark, the domain name should be considered confusingly similar to the registered trademark”.);Ver también Bayer Aktiengesellschaft v. H. Monseen,
Caso OMPI No. ...
2016-12-05 - Case Details
Therefore,
and in consideration to the Complaint’s compliance with the formal requirements
for this domain dispute proceeding, to the factual evidence and legal contentions
that were submitted, to the confirmation of the presence of each of the elements
contemplated in Paragraph 4(a)(i), (ii), and (iii) of the Policy, and on the
basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy,
the Rules and other applicable rules and principles of law, as directed by paragraph
15(a) of the Rules, it is found:
1. that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s POLO Marks;
2. that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
3. that the Domain Name was not registered and is not being used in bad faith by the Respondent.
...Identidad o similitud hasta el punto de causar confusión
Examen de los requisitos que debe cumplir la demanda de acuerdo con el apartado 4.a) de la Política.
4a)(i) Que el nombre de dominio registrado por el demandado es idéntico, o similar hasta el punto de crear confusión con respecto a una marca de productos o de servicios sobre la que el demandante tiene derechos;
Este Panel ha encontrado que existe semejanza en grado de confusión entre el nombre de dominio y la marca "INTERLAW" de la Demandante. ...
2003-05-07 - Case Details
Substantive issues
To qualify for cancellation or transfer, a Complainant must prove each element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, namely:
(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 domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2002-02-14 - Case Details
The burden for the Complainant, under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, is
to show:
- 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
- that the Respondent has no legitimate rights or interests in
respect of the domain name; and
- that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad
faith.
...
2002-05-16 - Case Details