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.
...The domain is of little or no interest to me and I will be happy to transfer it to them in full and final settlement of this matter.”
A similar inclination to transfer the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant is also shown in the Respondent’s email sent to the Complainant’s counsel on May 15, 2007.
...
2007-08-08 - Case Details
The Panel therefore on June 20, 2013 issued an Administrative Panel Procedural Order (the “Panel Order”). The Panel Order was similar to that that issued in RapidShare AG, Christian Schmid v. PrivacyAnywhere Software, LLC, Mikhail Berdnikov (Protected Domain Services Customer ID: DSR-2262893, Protected Domain Services Customer ID: DSR-2092987) and RapidShare AG, Christian Schmid v. ...Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its registered trademark BACCARAT; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as there is no relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent nor has the Complainant given any authorization to the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademark; and that the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.
...
2013-07-19 - Case Details
Registered in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that to earn a transfer of the disputed domain name the Complainant must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, each of the following:
(i) 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; 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.
...Notwithstanding its certification in the Complaint, required by paragraph 3(b)(xiv) of the Rules, that “that the assertions in this Complaint are warranted under the Rules and under applicable law, as it now exists or as it may be extended by a good-faith and reasonable argument,” the Complainant offers the Panel no reason why in this proceeding the Panel should depart from or modify settled Policy precedent.
The second reason is similar, though it involves a more serious pleading error. According to the Response, the Respondent has operated a dental clinic under the name NEO Dental Clinic since 2002. ...
2014-01-08 - Case Details
- In the many complaints under the UDRP which have been decided against it, the panelists have misunderstood and misrepresented its proposed business model and have been biased against it in favour of trademark owners.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated longstanding use and registration of the trademark BANK OF SCOTLAND and has clearly established rights in that trademark by registration in the UK and elsewhere.
...The analogy with a directory does not hold: any person may indeed be free to compile a directory of domain names, or telephones or addresses or similar, but need not for that purpose actually own any related domain names, by registration or otherwise. ...
2015-09-04 - Case Details
Substantive consideration
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant has the burden of proof in respect of the following three elements:
(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.
...Such conduct deserves the limited censure available to the Panel under the Policy and the Rules, if only to deter similar conduct in future. I would include a finding in the Panel's opinion that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and is an abuse of this administrative proceeding.
...
2010-08-03 - Case Details
Complainant further contends that the Domain Names are identical with and confusingly similar to the SUNFEST® trademarks pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).
Complainant contends that Respondents have no rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Names pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii).
...The only attempts by Respondents to establish business entities with names similar to the Domain Names occurred after the this dispute arose. Therefore, Respondents have not met their burden under the Policy, Section 4(c)(ii).
...
2000-10-07 - Case Details
The basis of this objection appears to be that because the presiding panelist
has participated in a decision on similar facts to the facts in this case, he
should be precluded from participating in this case. The parties to Case
No. ...Discussion and Findings
General
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 interests in respect
of the Domain Name; and
(iii) The Domain Name has been registered in bad faith and is being
used in bad faith.
...
2002-06-17 - Case Details
Noting the substantive similarities between the Policy and the UDRP, the Panel will refer to prior UDRP cases and doctrine where appropriate.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has rights in the GILEAD mark by virtue of its numerous trademark registrations around the world, and as a result of its continuous international use of this mark (over 30 years), goodwill and reputation.
...In cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered identical or confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of the Policy. Furthermore, the applicable generic Top-Level-Domain (“gTLD”) or ccTLD in a domain name is considered a standard technical registration requirement and, as such, is generally disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. ...
2021-10-28 - Case Details
To succeed, in accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must satisfy the Panel in respect of the Disputed Domain Name that:
(i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical with 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.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant asserts trademark rights in the term “vrindavan today” and relies upon the VT trademark application – see above.
...
2018-12-18 - Case Details
Pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a), the Complainant must prove each of the following to justify the transfer of the disputed domain name:
(i) 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; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain name is identical to the name “Altom”, in which the Complainant alleges to have trademark rights. ...
2012-09-26 - Case Details
Demandante
La Demandante sostiene que le nombre de dominio en disputa es confusamente similar a su marca registrada, ya que reproduce la marca en su totalidad con la mera adición del dominio de nivel superior de código de país (ccTLD) “.eu”.
...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.
...
2020-10-27 - Case Details
Respondent did not submit any documentary evidence with the Response.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainants have submitted sufficient evidence to establish that, at the time of the Complaint, they owned trademark rights in two PURPLE HEART trademark registrations. ...Complainants submitted evidence of the Respondent’s use of the domain name website as it appeared on February 15, 2012, including PPC links to other organizations that offer car donation services similar to those offered by Second Complainant, and not including any reference to Respondent’s brother David Capps on that date.
...
2012-06-25 - Case Details
Procter and Gamble has changed its branding strategy in a similar way, offering nearly 100 of generic domain names for sale at Greatdomains.com at the end of June 2000.
...Discussion and Findings
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.
...
2000-08-25 - Case Details
The Respondent is invited to provide evidence to substantiate its prior business relationship with the
Complainants and/or any authorization granted by the Complainants’ former manager to register and/or use
the disputed domain name in or around 2011 (such as invoices, correspondence, emails, or similar
documentation), on or before February 16, 2026; and
2. The Complainants are invited to provide evidence of the role and position of the now-deceased employee
referenced in the record, and of whether he/she had any authority to permit the Respondent to register the
disputed domain name and use the Complainants’ TUFESA trademarks in or around 2011 (such as an
employment agreement, correspondence, emails, or similar documentation), on or before February 16,
2026.”
...Notably, the Complainants contend that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to their TUFESA
mark, as it reproduces this trademark in its entirety, followed by the term “bus,” which is contextually related
to the Complainants’ services.
...
2026-03-04 - Case Details
Sin embargo el Demandante no presentó prueba alguna que acredite que efectivamente a partir de abril del presente año el contenido del sitio relacionado con el nombre de dominio en disputa es igual o similar al del Demandante, sin que precise cual era el uso que se daba al nombre de dominio en disputa con anterioridad a la fecha de presentación de la Demanda.
...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”. ...
2011-06-01 - Case Details
Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the
language of the proceeding shall be English.
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2026-01-09 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2026-05-27 - Case Details
Pursuant to Article 4 of the Regulation (EU) No. 2019/517 and Paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(i)-(iii) of the ADR
Rules, the Panel finds that:
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right or rights are
recognized or established by European Union law.
...
2026-08-17 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2026-08-25 - Case Details
The Panel accepts the Complaint as filed in English and the
Respondent’s email communications as submitted in German and English and will proceed in its discretion
to render its decision in English.
page 4
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has shown that it has rights in the CARPETVISTA trademark, which is reproduced in its
entirety in the disputed domain names.
...
2023-09-14 - Case Details