The Panel notes that the disputed domain name is composed of Latin characters, and that “monsterenergy” 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 U.S., EU, international registrations designating numerous countries worldwide including the Russian Federation, and the national trademark registrations in the Russian Federation.
...
2021-08-09 - Case Details
On January 9, 2017, the Complainant received an email from "Chapdomains" stating as follows:
"I'm just writing in to see if you'd like to own "everphone .com", since it is similar to the one that you currently have.
I shall provide you verification of ownership before proceeding as well. ...Panels have found reverse domain name hijacking in circumstances where, as here, a respondent's use of a domain name could not, under any fair interpretation of the facts, have constituted bad faith, and where a reasonable investigation would have revealed the weaknesses in any potential complaint under the Policy.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the mark "everphone" by virtue of its German registered trade mark for that term.
...
2017-07-10 - Case Details
The Panel would add, however, that the outcome of this case would have been the same, even if it had admitted both filings.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is not in dispute that the Complainant has acquired rights in the mark MEZ, based on its registered trade marks for that term.
...The Respondent has established that, as one might expect, the term "MEZ" is in widespread use, particularly as an acronym and that the disputed domain name is part of a pattern of similar three-letter domain names owned by it.
The Panel therefore concludes the Complainant has failed to establish the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
...
2017-01-13 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Although the merits of the Complainant's case are quickly resolved in subsection C below, the Panel elects also to address the other two Policy elements in order fully to consider the Respondent's request for a finding of reverse domain name hijacking.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated common law rights in its GRANDSTAND brand sufficient to invoke the Policy. ...The officer's statements that the GRANDSTAND mark "is strong and has acquired significant goodwill" is nothing more than a desired legal conclusion that must be proven, not simply alleged. Similar allegations in the Complaint may be similarly described and are similarly discounted by the Panel.
...
2017-10-24 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
General
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely 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 and is being used in bad faith.
...Instead, the Panel believes that it will be more appropriate to follow the course taken in a number of similar cases, namely to terminate without prejudice to the right for the Complainant to seek to refile the Complaint following termination of the District Court case or in the event that the Court decides in favour of the Complainant. ...
2015-01-21 - Case Details
To take account of Complainant’s contrary view (Complaint, paragraph 6quinquies), that Whois-Privacy Services is the proper Respondent, however, this Panel will discuss their applicability to both named Respondents.
D. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Respondent has conceded the operative facts upon which this Policy head turn – that Complainant holds valid trademarks for ASBACH, and that the disputed domain name incorporates the mark verbatim. ...Asbach is in fact a name of a number of communes in Germany and Respondent has in fact registered other domain names incorporating other similar geographic identifiers.
While Respondent provided no evidence that it has commenced this business, these materials well exceed what is needed to prove the “demonstrable preparations” to do so required under the Policy’s safe harbor in paragraph 4(c)(i). ...
2012-08-21 - Case Details
Parties’ Contentions
A) The Complainant
Complainant contends that the domain names are identical or similar to the extent of creating confusion in respect of the trademarks or service marks on which the complainant holds rights; that Respondent has no legitimate rights or interests in respect of the domain names. omplainant has given no license, authorization, consent or permission, or authorization to register or apply for the domain names at issue. ...Decision
The Panel has found that both domain names at issue are confusingly similar to Complainant´s trademarks, that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in said domain names, and that such domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. ...
2001-03-09 - Case Details
What the Complainant Must Prove – General
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a complainant has the burden of proving the following:
(i) That the disputed domain name 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 disputed domain name; and
(iii) That the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules requires the panel to:
“… decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any Rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has clearly proved this part of the Complaint. It has established that it is the proprietor of the mark AXEGA in Germany, the European Union, and internationally under the Madrid system of International Trademark registration. ...
2008-11-07 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisfy with respect to each of the Domain Names at issue in this case:
(i) the Domain Names are 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 of the Domain Names; and
(iii) the Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There is no question of Complainant's longstanding rights in the famous SUPER BOWL trademark. ...
2009-04-22 - Case Details
It is hardly legible and does not bear any official
sign such as the stamp of an authority, a hospital or anything similar. The
Complainant contests the authenticity of the said alleged birth certificate.
The Respondent has not submitted any evidence which shows that the name "Vishnu
Prasad Miba" appears on any document. ...Discussion and Findings
6.1 Elements to be proved
To succeed, the Complainant must establish under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy that
i) the said Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which it has rights; and
ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the said Domain Name; and
iii) the said Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent.
6.2 Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant has rights in "MIBA". ...
2002-03-04 - Case Details
Debate y conclusiones
De conformidad con el artículo 4, apartado 4, del Reglamento (UE) 2019/517 del Parlamento Europeo y del
Consejo, de 19 de marzo de 2019, relativo a la implementación y el funcionamiento del nombre de dominio
de primer nivel “.eu”, y con el apartado B.11.d.1 del Reglamento de resolución alternativa de litigios (ADR),
para que prospere su reclamación, el demandante debe demostrar las siguientes circunstancias:
(i) que el nombre de dominio en disputa es idéntico o confusamente similar a un nombre respecto del cual
se reconoce o establece un derecho en virtud de la legislación nacional de un Estado miembro y/o del
Derecho de la Unión Europea, y; bien
(ii) que el nombre de dominio en disputa ha sido registrado por el demandado sin derechos ni intereses
legítimos sobre el nombre; o
(iii) que el nombre de dominio en disputa ha sido registrado o se está utilizando de mala fe.
...The Panel f inds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks
COMUNIDAD MONTEPINAR registered in Spain; the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in
respect of the disputed domain name; and the disputed domain name was registered as well as used in bad
faith.
5. ...
2026-04-08 - 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”. ...Considerando lo antes dicho, de un
examen a simple vista se advierte que el nombre de dominio en disputa es confusamente similar a la marca
SAP NETWEAVER de la Demandante. El nombre de dominio en disputa incorpora en su totalidad dicha
marca, precedida de “curso”, percibiéndose que dicha marca es claramente reconocible en el nombre de
dominio en disputa, y sin que la adición de “curso” evite que haya similitud confusa entre el nombre de
dominio en disputa y dicha marca de la Demandante (véanse las secciones 1.7 y 1.8 de la Sinopsis de las
opiniones de los grupos de expertos de la OMPI sobre determinadas cuestiones relacionadas con la UDRP,
tercera edición (“Sinopsis de la OMPI 3.0”)).
...
2023-07-12 - Case Details
Offer to Transfer
To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the
Policy have been satisfied, namely:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the
Complainant has rights;
(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.
...
2026-07-24 - Case Details
Moreover, as discussed below, the Respondent has failed to provide any exculpatory information or
reasoning that might have led the Panel to question the Complainant’s arguments that the Respondent has
acted in bad faith.
6.2. Substantive Aspects
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established
by national law of a Member State and/or European Union law
In comparing the Mark with the disputed domain name, it is evident that the latter consists of the Mark and
the country-code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) “.eu”.
...
2026-04-28 - Case Details
In summary, the Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly
similar to its REVE trade mark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain
Name, and that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith. ...
2026-05-28 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2026-08-18 - Case Details
Pursuant to 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 national law of a Member State and/or European Union law.
...
2023-05-09 - Case Details
Pursuant to 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 national law of a Member State and/or European Union law.
...
2023-04-06 - Case Details
For the foregoing reasons the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s TED BAKER trademark.
A. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, a respondent may establish its rights or legitimate interests in the
domain name, among other circumstances, by showing any of the following elements:
“(i) before any notice to you [the Respondent] of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to
use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering
of goods or services; or
(ii) you [the Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by
the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you [the Respondent] are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without
intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at
issue.”
...
2023-09-21 - Case Details
Substantive Issues: Three Elements
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2024-02-06 - Case Details