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 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.
...
2014-11-28 - Case Details
Complainant has rights in WALMART by reason of its many USPTO-registered marks and longtime prominent use of its corporate name in retail commerce. The disputed domain names are thus confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
2. Complainant has never authorized Respondent to use its WALMART marks, and Respondent has never been commonly known by that term. ...
2015-01-13 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contended that the disputed domain name was identical or confusingly similar to its registered trademark ROCKWOOL; that the Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests and that the disputed domain name had been registered and used in bad faith.
...
2012-05-18 - Case Details
In the circumstances, the Panel’s decision is based upon the Complainant’s assertions and evidence and inferences drawn from the Respondent’s failure to reply.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has a trademark registration for the mark BRADESCO No. 007170424 in respect of “bank services” in class 36 of goods and services which remain in force. ...
2010-11-23 - Case Details
There is no evidence of a globally comprehensive trademark.”
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant is the registered owner of two European Community Trademarks and has demonstrated substantial publicities for the trademark surrounding the opening of the Group’s London salon. ...
2010-11-02 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant alleges that the three requirements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been established in the present case, namely that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name (there being no evidence hereof any authority or licence from it to use the domain name); and that the domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith (particular reference is made here to the various services etc. that have been offered by the Respondent on its website that relate to the mining industry and which, it is contended, are likely to mislead or confuse Internet users.)
...
2010-07-16 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
The key issue in this proceeding is not whether the Domain Name is identical and/or confusingly similar to the Complaint’s trade mark or whether the Complainant is the true proprietor. In terms of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed the Complainant must show that:
the Respondent had no right or legitimate interest in the Domain Name;
the Domain Name was registered in bad faith; and
the Domain Name was used in bad faith.
...
2000-05-05 - Case Details
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 name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2000-04-12 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
Complainant contends that:
(1) The domain name is identical, and therefore confusingly similar to Complainant’s IBOPE mark, because:
Being the Complainant the title holder of mark "IBOPE", registered in Brazil as well as in several countries throughout the world, in connection to market and opinion research services, and being "ibope" the relevant part of the disputed domain name, it is incontrovertible that the domain name at issue is identical to Complainant’s mark...
2000-10-23 - Case Details
Parties' Contentions
5. 1 Complainant contends that:
a) The domain name is identical, and therefore confusingly similar to the trademark REDE GLOBO, because:
i) It incorporates fully the REDE GLOBO trademark textual components, with the sole difference being the particle "com" addition.
...
2000-06-06 - Case Details
Complainant
Complainant contends the following:
- The domain name [s] [is/are] identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
- The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name...
2001-08-03 - Case Details
To qualify for cancellation or transfer, a complainant must prove each element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, namely:
(i) the disputed domain names are 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 domain names; and
(iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
...
2001-04-24 - 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.
...
2001-03-30 - 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 in which the Complainant has rights;
(2) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to
the Domain Name; and
(3) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2001-08-08 - Case Details
The Panel shall herein below
examine whether each of such conditions is present or not in this case:
(i) the domainDomain nameName must be identical or confusingly similar to a
trademark or a service mark in which the Complainant has rights
Even though the Respondent skillfully contends that the domainDomain Name is
identical to the name of a city, and not to the mark owned by the Complainant,
it is clear that (the domainDomain nameName) is identical
to "ARACRUZ" (the Complainant's service mark). ...
2001-12-31 - Case Details
Discussion
The onus is on the Complainant to prove each of the three elements set
out in paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN Policy, as follows:
(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.
...
2002-05-10 - Case Details
Pursuant to the discretion given to the Panel in Uniform Rule 12, the Panel declines to accept the unsolicited submission.
6.2 Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel as to the principles the Panel is to use in determining the dispute: "A Panel shall 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."
6.3 Since both the Complainant and Respondent are domiciled in the United States, to the extent that it would assist the Panel in determining whether the Complainant has met its burden as established by Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Panel shall look to rules and principles of law set out in decisions of the courts of the United States.
6.4 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 used in bad faith.
6.5 Paragraph 18(a) of the Uniform Rules provides that "[i]n the event of any legal proceedings initiated prior to or during an administrative proceeding in respect of a domain-name dispute that is the subject of the complaint, the Panel shall have the discretion to decide whether to suspend or terminate the administrative proceeding, or to proceed to a decision."
6.6 The Panel notes that the legal proceeding was filed three months ago and
that it was requested that such proceeding and the present UDRP proceeding be
enjoined. ...
2002-03-27 - 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.
...
2002-02-06 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
According to Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following:
(i) that the Respondent’s 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 Domain Name; and
(iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
1. ...
2001-08-10 - Case Details
Accordingly, we find that Complainant's objections are not barred by its alleged delay in taking action.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain names are identical to trademarks in which Complainant has prior trademark registrations and rights.
...
2003-07-15 - Case Details