D2008-1191 ():
"…a clear default by a Respondent who has been informed in their own language of the proceedings, and of the preliminary acceptance of the Complaint in a particular language, would certainly be a strong factor in support of a Panel subsequently determining that there should be consistency between the language of the Complaint as originally accepted and the language of proceedings as ultimately determined by the Panel."
6.1. Analysis of the Complaint
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant submitted extracts of the BALMAIN trade mark registrations from the official public records of the Trade Mark Office of the State Administration for Industry & Commerce of the People's Republic of China and the World Intellectual Property Organization. ...
2018-02-14 - Case Details
Furthermore, one of the filings exceeded the file size limits specified in the Supplemental Rules.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant’s pending United States trade mark application is insufficient to establish trade mark rights for the purposes of the first element – see section 1.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.
...
2018-12-24 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has shown that it has registered rights in the Trade Marks. The Domain Name is identical to the Trade Marks as it incorporates the term “Chatroulette”, of which the Trade Marks consist, in its entirety. ...
2019-05-27 - Case Details
Accordingly, all references hereafter to “the Complainant” are to be read as references to BB31 Pty Ltd.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the holder of the business name “31 Broadbeach”, registered with ASIC. ...
2019-03-22 - Case Details
It
has therefore not contested the contentions made by the Complainant, and the
Panel shall decide on the basis of the Complainant’s submissions, and
all inferences that can reasonably be drawn there from (Rules, paragraph 14(b)).
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name is identical to the trademark KUONI in which the Complainant has rights (the gTLD .mobi cannot be taken into consideration when judging identity or confusing similarity).
...
2007-04-27 - Case Details
In that regard and apart from judging this proceeding through mere default of the Respondent, the Panel makes the following specific findings.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The similarity between the trademarks “La Caixa” and the domain name is obvious.
...
2005-08-17 - Case Details
Such conduct entitles Respondent to a finding of reverse domain name highjacking
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar.
The determination of whether a Complainant has rights in a mark sufficient to invoke the Policy under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is made at the date the Complaint is filed. ...
2007-12-07 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s
contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In the Panel’s view there is no doubt that this requirement has been met, in that the dominant word element of the domain name is identical to the trademark HINANO, in which the Complainant has shown that it has exclusive rights.
...
2006-03-15 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark registrations, which contain the word “DOWNUNDER”.
Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with regard to the Domain Name because Respondent has not used or shown 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. ...
2006-06-21 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The contested domain name is .
The Complainant has provided evidence that it owns valid trademark rights in the name “Crédit Mutuel”.
...
2008-08-19 - Case Details
D2004-0755 (emphasis in original).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar. Each disputed domain name incorporates, verbatim and without adornment, the name Philip Morris in which the Complainant claims rights. ...
2015-03-06 - Case Details
Secondly, Claimant argues that the Domain Name is identical (and/or confusingly similar) to Claimant’s Swiss trademark. The Domain Name entirely incorporates the distinctive sign EVA SOLO held by Claimant as a trademark and as company name.
...
2015-02-24 - Case Details
Decision
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 acquired through use and registration.
...
2014-08-18 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the following three elements is present:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark; 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.
...
2013-11-07 - Case Details
On this basis the Respondent alleges that the Complainant should have known that its Complaint could never succeed under the Policy and that the Complaint amounts to a case of reverse domain name hijacking.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has registered trade mark rights in the CROMA mark as set out above and that the substantive elements of the disputed domain name are identical to this mark. ...
2013-09-12 - Case Details
As to bad faith registration and use the Respondent reiterates some of the points above, asserting that there can be no confusion between the Complainant’s business and the Respondent’s intended cloud computing services purpose for the disputed domain name.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the Complainant’s name and registered trademarks; the addition of the word “cloud”, while indicative of cloud computing, does not remove the initial confusion and would, due to confusing similarity likely lead an Internet user to conclude that the site is connected to “Woolworths”. ...
2011-12-20 - Case Details
It was contended that this was precisely the type of use here.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There is no dispute that the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant's trademark and adds the descriptive “fordogs”. ...
2010-07-02 - Case Details
As to the prior instances of UDRP disputes in which he was involved, he explains that some of those disputes were settled after litigation and in one case he chose not to respond.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant's registration of the RVK mark on the USPTO's Principal Register satisfies the requirement that Complainant have rights in the mark. ...
2015-01-22 - Case Details
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove all three of the following elements to be entitled to the relief sought: (i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) that the Respondent's domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2015-02-17 - 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 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 of the Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2014-12-03 - Case Details