Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the following three elements are present:
(i) the domain names are 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 names; and
(iii) the domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
...
2007-07-10 - Case Details
He says that it contained no pricing or selling information and that he never advertised the site to internet users.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has demonstrated that it owns trade mark rights for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2011-08-16 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Panel finds that English is the proper language of the proceedings.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The test of identity or confusing similarity under the Policy is confined to a comparison of the disputed domain name and the trademark alone, independent of the products for which the domain name is used or other marketing and use factors usually considered in trademark infringement. ...
2011-11-24 - Case Details
Nonetheless, paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainants prove each of the three elements set forth therein to obtain an order that the Domain Name should be cancelled or transferred.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is uncontested that Complainants have established worldwide rights in their well-known KPMG Mark long before Respondent registered the Domain Name on October 8, 2014. ...
2015-02-04 - Case Details
These facts, in conjunction with the arguments put forth by the Complainant, and in the interest of expediency, lead the Panel to conclude that the proper Language of the Proceeding in this case is English.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The textual string of the disputed domain name in this matter is “laquinta”, which is identical to the Complainant’s registered LA QUINTA trademark, omitting only the space between the two words. ...
2012-03-16 - Case Details
Should Complainant initiate UDRP proceedings to recover them as well, the Panel hopes that it will forego gratuitous mudslinging or provide documentary proof to back up its allegations.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant’s evidence demonstrates registered rights in the KAREN MILLEN trademark. ...
2012-11-08 - Case Details
These elements are as follows:
(i) Respondent’s Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the Domain Name; and
(iii) Respondent’s Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2004-11-03 - Case Details
These elements are as follows:
(i) Respondent’s Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the Domain Name; and
(iii) Respondent’s Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2004-07-13 - Case Details
General Principles
Under paragraph 4 (a) of the Policy, the Panel should be satisfied that:
(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name;
(iii) the domain name has been registered in bad faith;
(iv) the domain name is being used in bad faith.
...
2000-06-16 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove that:
a) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a service mark to which the Complainant has rights;
b) the Respondent has no legitimate interest in respect of the domain name;
c) the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.
...
2000-11-16 - Case Details
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following:
(1) 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,
(2) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and,
(3) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith...
2000-11-20 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
On the basis of the evidence introduced by the Complainant and in particular with regard to the content of the relevant provisions of the Uniform Policy, (paragraphs 4(a), (b), (c)), the Administrative Panel concludes as follows:
(a) Whether the domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights?
The Administrative Panel finds that the mark "Mbassy" has been developed by Leo Burnett for the Complainant pursuant to the Mbassy Project, an interactive website to strategically promote the Complainant’s products to the teens market. ...
2001-10-08 - Case Details
The burden for the Complainant, under paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN 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;
- That the Respondent has no legitimate rights or interests in respect of the domain name; and
- The domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.
...
2002-03-06 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainants’ contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainants claim rights in N KIDS. To show that they are the owners of the trademark N KIDS, the Complainants have produced extracts relating to the registration of the US Trademark No. 1853152 and the Community Trademark No. 163071. ...
2003-06-30 - Case Details
Conclusions and findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy lists three tests which a Complainants must satisfy in order to succeed:
(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainants 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.
...
2002-10-24 - Case Details
El Experto nota que si bien el nombre de dominio en disputa no es idéntico a la marca del Demandante, si es, atendiendo al contexto y las circunstancias específicas del caso arriba analizadas, (en línea con la sección 1.7 de la Sinopsis de las opiniones de los grupos de expertos sobre determinadas cuestiones relacionadas con la Política UDRP, tercera edición ("Sinopsis elaborada por la OMPI 3.0")), confusamente similar con la marca registrada2.
En consecuencia, el Experto considera que, en el presente caso, el nombre de dominio en disputa es confusamente similar con la marca RED TURÍSTICA DE PUEBLOS PATRIMONIO del Demandante y por esta razón se encuentra probado el primer elemento del párrafo 4(a) de la Política.
...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. Monssen,
Caso OMPI No. ...
2017-07-14 - Case Details
DIE2005-0001 in which the learned panel decided that the words “misleadingly similar” as used in paragraph 1.1.1. of the IEDR Policy are to be given the same meaning as given to the words “confusingly similar” when used in Article 8 CTMR Community Regulation 40/94, Section 10 the Trade Marks Act 1994, section 14 the Trade Marks Act 1996 and the European Court of Justice in Sabel v Puma (C-No. 251/95 of November 11, 1997).
...The Registrant further submits that the following arguments made in the Complaint have no relevance in this case and have been used as a deliberate ploy to mislead the proceedings:
The Complainant cites UK case law in relation to concept of “misleadingly similar” and also refers to how “taxassist.ie” is identically similar to trademark numbers 2481631 and 2481633. ...
2008-07-25 - Case Details
The Claimant states that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its protected trade name
BELFIUS, because the former incorporates the latter. Furthermore, the Claimant submits that the fact that
the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a standard placeholder page of the Registrar might result in the
tarnishing of the Claimant’s trade name as Swiss customers may perceive it as unprofessional or believe that
page 3
the website has been hacked and therefore trigger security concerns.
...Forfeiture is admitted only under the condition that the right holder has tolerated the violation of his rights
through the use of an identical or similar sign without contradiction during a long time and that, in the
meantime, the infringer has acquired valuable vested rights to the sign (DSC of January 21, 2005,
4C.376/2004, consid. 4.1). ...
2022-10-07 - Case Details
The Panel notes that the disputed domain name is composed of Latin characters, and that “monster-energy” is not a dictionary word or phrase in Russian.
In previous similar cases, panels have found that certain scenarios may warrant proceeding in a language other than that of the registration agreement (see section 4.5 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”)).
...Based on the foregoing, the Panel concludes that it is not unfair to the Parties to proceed in English and finds that it is appropriate to exercise its discretion and allow the proceeding to be conducted in English.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has proved its rights in the MONSTER ENERGY trademark through trademark registrations in the United States and European Union, as well as international registrations designating numerous countries worldwide including the Russian Federation, and national trademark registrations in the Russian Federation.
...
2021-08-26 - Case Details
The Panel notes that the disputed domain name is composed of Latin characters, and that “monster-energy” is not a dictionary word or phrase in Russian.
In previous similar cases, panels have found that certain scenarios may warrant proceeding in a language other than that of the registration agreement (see section 4.5 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”)).
...Based on the foregoing, the Panel concludes that it is not unfair to the Parties to proceed in English and finds that it is appropriate to exercise its discretion and allow the proceeding to be conducted in English.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has proved its rights in the MONSTER ENERGY trademark through the US, EU trademarks, international registrations designating numerous countries worldwide including the Russian Federation, and the national trademark registrations in the Russian Federation.
...
2021-08-09 - Case Details