page 4
Art. 3 para. 1 lit d UCA confers protection to older unregistered distinctive signs against confusingly similar
signs. This protection is based on priority of use. The Claimant submitted invoices from 2019 to 2022
allegedly showing sales in Switzerland for a total amount of over EUR 30,000. ...
2023-11-09 - Case Details
Pursuant to Paragraph B(11)(d)(1)(i)-(iii) of the ADR Rules, the Panel f inds 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.
...
2023-10-11 - Case Details
In the circumstances the Panel declines to accept the
Complainant’s supplemental filing, filed in response to the Respondent’s email.
6.3 Substantive Elements of the Policy
The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark.
Disregarding the country code Top-Level Domain, the disputed domain name is identical to the Trade Mark.
...
2024-01-10 - Case Details
Pursuant to Article 4 of the Commission Regulation (EU) No. 2019/517 and Article B11(d)(1)(i)-(iii) of the
ADR Rules, the Panel finds that: - the disputed domain names are 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
EU-law; - the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names; - the
Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith.
6. ...
2023-12-27 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name incorporates the LAFISE trademark in
full, changing the trademark only by adding the term “leaks” and the generic Top-Level domain (“gTLD”)
“.org” af ter the trademark. It says the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the LAFISE
trademark.
The Complainant says the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name
given that (1) the Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant; (2) the Complainant’s rights in the
LAFISE trademark precede the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name; and (3) the
Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. ...
2025-04-07 - 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 identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right or rights
are recognized or established by the national law of a Member State and/or European Union law.
...
2025-06-27 - Case Details
case=DEU2022-0019
page 5
- European Union Trademark LEROY MERLIN No. 010843597 ;
- European Union Trademark LEROY MERLIN No. 011008281,
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. ...
2022-09-28 - Case Details
Pursuant to Article 21(1) of the Commission Regulation (EU) No. 874/2004 and Article 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 EU-law;
- the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
6. ...
2022-06-02 - Case Details
However, the Respondent did make various assertions in communications with the Complainant during the settlement negotiations, including that: (i) the disputed domain name was purchased “for a purpose” (although the actual purpose was not specified); (ii) the disputed domain name was chosen “based on a strong numerological context”; (iii) subsequent to registration of the disputed domain name, “branding, logo and building a website was in process but due to the pandemic it took some time” (the Respondent attached images of an “Arkema” logo on which it claimed its branding consultant was working); and (iv) the Respondent purchased the disputed domain name also because it was available.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Once the gTLD “.tech” is ignored (which is appropriate in this case), the disputed domain name consists of the whole of the Complainant’s registered word trademark ARKEMA. ...
2021-08-04 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent sent two email communications to the Center but did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated that it owns registered trade mark rights in the KAROLINSKA INSTITUTET mark and in particular in the European Union under trade mark number 004884185 registered on 14 April 2020. ...
2020-06-30 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 1.6 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition ("WIPO Overview 2.0") states the consensus view of UDRP panels that, while the UDRP does not specifically protect personal names as such, in situations where a personal name unregistered as a trade mark is being used for trade or commerce, a complainant may be able to establish common law or unregistered trade mark rights in that name. ...
2016-09-13 - Case Details
In any event, the Panel notes that the Respondent had submissions and discusses them below as relevant.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the trademark TRENDYOL obtained through registration and use, which predate the date of registration of the disputed domain name by many years.
...
2018-07-10 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel determines English to be the language of this proceeding.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established it has rights in the trade mark BAYER. ...
2016-01-05 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There is no difference between the disputed domain name and the VENTE-PRIVEE trademarks of the Complainant. ...
2018-03-29 - Case Details
The Respondent has provided no ground for making the Panel believe that it would be prejudiced by this decision.
6.2 Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the ESSELUNGA trade mark in which the Complainant has shown to have rights. ...
2018-06-11 - Case Details
Turning to the merits of the case, in order to prevail, the Complainant must prove the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
6.2. Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademarks KRAVET and KRAVET FURNITURE.
...
2017-09-05 - Case Details
The Panel therefore determines that English shall be the language of the proceeding.
6.2. Substantive Issues
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has trade mark rights in EYLEA. The disputed domain names comprise the word EYLEA in its entirety. ...
2017-12-14 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires Complainant to demonstrate that:
(i) the disputed 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 to the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2009-03-17 - Case Details
D2003-0796, se señalaba:
“Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires, as one element to be proved, that the domain name be identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights. These words do not require that Complainant be the owner of the mark and would include, for example, a licensee of the mark. ...
2009-09-16 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
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 in which the Complainant has rights; and
(b) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the Domain Name; and
(c) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2006-08-24 - Case Details