Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the burden is on the Complainant to establish each of the following elements:
(i) That the Respondent’s Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;
(ii) That Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect to the Domain Name; and
(iii) That Respondent’s Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith.
...
2002-11-13 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel decides that the domain name is identical to the trademark SIALGEO.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Although the Complainant did not provide any evidence of the lack of rights or legitimate interests on the side of the Respondent, the Panel concludes that the second criterion is fulfilled. ...
2003-12-23 - 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.
...
2002-09-23 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
To succeed in its Complaint, Complainant must show that each of the conditions of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is satisfied, namely 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 the Domain Name; and
(iii) The Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith.
...
2002-11-08 - Case Details
Further it asserts that the Starluck mark is universally relied on as identifying Complainant as the sole source of Starluck on-line products and services.
5.3 Complainant asserts that it has expended considerable time, effort and money in advertising, promoting and selling its products and services in connection with the Starluck mark and the "Starluck family" of marks and that, as a result, Starluck has become a global brand of enormous strength in the relatively new industry of Internet gaming, and that the Starluck marks are universally relied upon as identifying Complainant as the sole source of Starluck on-line products and services.
5.4 The Complainant asserts that it has made continuous use of the "Starluck" mark worldwide, for over five (5) years, in connection with the sale of (1) computer software for the operation of on-line games, contests, sweepstakes, lotteries and wagering, all over the means of local and global computer networks; (2) computer disks and CD-ROMs containing computer software for the operation of on-line games, contests, sweepstakes, lotteries and wagering, all over the means of local and global computer networks; (3) instruction manuals sold as a unit, and (4) entertainment services, namely, conducting games, contests, sweepstakes, lotteries and wagering, all over means of local and global communications networks.
5.5 The Complainant asserts that rights in the Starluck mark arose through use of the Starluck mark as early as September 30, 1997, four (4) years prior to Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name on August 23, 2001, and that the domain name incorporates wholesale Complainant’s valuable Starluck mark followed by a generic designation.
5.6 The Complainant asserts that without its consent, and with full knowledge of Complainant’s trademark rights, Respondent registered the domain name with OnlineNIC.com on August 23, 2001, and that the domain name incorporates wholesale Complainant’s valuable Starluck mark followed by a generic designation, making it identical and/or confusingly similar to Complainant’s "Starluck" mark and the "Starluck family" of domain names and common law trademarks
5.7 The Complainant pleads that the Respondent has no rights nor legitimate interests in the domain name pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii).
5.8 Complainant pleads that Respondent registered the domain name and is using it in bad faith contrary to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy due to the following circumstances:
5.8.1 Respondent uses the domain name to conduct business on the Internet for the same services rendered and in direct competition with Complainant.
5.8.2 Respondent adopted and used the disputed domain name with the intention to exploit and unfairly trade on Complainant’s goodwill developed in its Starluck marks and brands by intentionally attempting to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the Respondent’s website or location.
5.8.3 Respondent uses Complainant’s Starluck mark to redirect web traffic to its own competing website.
...
2003-05-22 - Case Details
Therefore it is clear that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark WHAT CAR?.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Registrant should be considered to have no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name.
...Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 1.4 of the Policy states: “the Complainant carries the burden of proving, prima facie, that the three conditions specified in paragraph 1.1 are met”.
A. Identical or Misleadingly Similar
The first condition in paragraph 1.1 of the Policy is that the Domain Name is identical or misleadingly similar to a protected identifier in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2008-02-05 - Case Details
Given this, and given the outcome of the proceeding as
discussed below, the Panel considers that the Respondent has not been prejudiced by the fact that it has not
been able to view the exhibits in English.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Respondent
6. Discussion and Findings
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-04-08 - Case Details
The Panel must conduct the proceedings with due expedition, and the
Respondent’s supplemental filing therefore comes too late in the day to be admitted.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...Complainant’s comments upon Respondent’s submissions in reply to Procedural Order No. 1
6. Discussion and Findings
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
7. Decision...
2024-10-25 - Case Details
What the Complainant Must Prove
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant has the burden of proving the following:
(i) That the 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.
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”.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has sufficiently proved that there are registered Benelux and international registrations of the mark CERTIPOST. ...
2008-10-06 - Case Details
Given the difficulties explained earlier in this decision in identifying the “correct” registrant and “Respondent” in this case, it is preferable that the Panel's reasons in this respect be set out in full.
7.5 Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant has the burden of proof in respect of the following three elements:
(i) The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights (paragraph 4(a)(i)); and
(ii) The respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name (paragraph 4(a)(ii)); and
(iii) The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (paragraph 4(a)(iii)).
The Panel will consider each of these requirements in turn.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
7.6 The Panel accepts that the Complainant has a number of trade marks that comprise the word AIRTEL. ...
2010-07-19 - Case Details
According to the Policy, paragraph 4(a) the Complainant shall prove each of the following:
(i) 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,
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the Domain Name; and,
(iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith.
Identical or confusingly Similarity:
The Domain Name is identical to the Complainant's trademark "TF1.com", and virtually identical to the Complainant's trademark "TF1", which is sufficient for the purposes of the Policy.
...
2000-09-21 - Case Details
The Respondent alleges that this is a case of reverse domain name hijacking on the basis that the Complainant should have known of its use and interest in the disputed domain name when it started its own business and that this Complaint is conceived to try and obtain the disputed domain name after the fact and that the Complainant even tried this tactic in October 2009 at a time when the Respondent had only used the disputed domain name in relation to its religious websites and content.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has, as noted above, various trade mark registrations around the world for or incorporating its TRUE RELIGION mark, including in particular US word mark registration 3628973. ...Even though the Respondent’s subsequent use might be considered to be a diversion of Internet users for commercial purposes in terms of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, the majority, similar to the approach of the panel in the Validas decision, does not consider that this provision can be interpreted to deem evidence of use in bad faith as evidence of both registration and use in bad faith in circumstances that there is clear evidence of good faith registration.
...
2013-10-11 - Case Details
Initially the Disputed Domain Names resolved to a site maintained by Respondent and captioned "Injustice for Children" that copied or simulated much of the headers from Complainant's website but then followed this copied format with a paragraph of text in which Respondent criticized Complainant's activities. Much of this was done in a style similar to that used by Complainant on its website. Complainant correctly characterizes this 2002 web content as copying the "look and feel" of Complainant's official website. ...Discussion and Findings
The Complainant must prove the elements set out in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy:
(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.
...
2004-06-08 - Case Details
The Panel has not been able to identify any other cases decided under the Policy involving similar circumstances.
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to be successful the Complainant has the burden of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that all of three elements are present in its Complaint. ...Paragraph 4(a)(i) provides:
"(i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights."
The Complainant does have a trade mark, but only applied to register it a few days prior to the filing of the complaint. ...
2000-09-19 - Case Details
In relation to the element described in paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy the Respondent acknowledges that the Domain Name "is similar to trade marks in which the Complainant has rights". The Respondent goes on to assert that "this might also be said of other registered domain names, for example, kosmea.sk and kosmea.net". ...The Panel has paid no regard to material not relevant to the elements set out in paragraph 4 of the Policy.
7.2. Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’ Mark
The domain name in dispute is kosmea.com. It comprises only "kosmea" together with the .com TLD designation.
...
2000-10-04 - Case Details
Similarity
The Complainant takes the position that the contested domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its registered mark as to likely confuse Internet users who may believe they are doing business with the Complainant or with an entity whose services are endorsed by, sponsored by, or affiliated with the Complainant; hence, satisfying the confusing similarity requirement in paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
...Hence, any use to which either the Respondent or Bestnet, Inc. were to put of the term NET WIZARD, in connection with services identical or similar to those with which the Complainant is using its mark, would directly violate the exclusive trademark rights now residing in the Complainant -- rights which began accruing to the Complainant some 2 1/2 years prior to the date on which the contested domain name was registered. ...
2001-04-11 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...https://www.wipo.int/en/web/amc/domain-name-disputes/overview/index
https://www.wipo.int/en/web/amc/domain-name-disputes/overview/index
page 7
Moreover, the disputed domain name has been redirected to a website offering services similar to the ones
provided by the Complainants under the TRADEVIEW mark in the financial sector and the Panel also noted
the Complainants’ asserted concerns as to the use of the disputed domain name for fraudulent activities
given the field in which they operate. ...
2026-09-01 - Case Details
The packaging of the 1000g product shown on both websites is:
The packaging for the tea bag product is similar, but in English.
The most notable difference between the websites is that the “Contact” page for the first disputed domain
name provides contact details for the First Respondent while the “Contact” page for the second disputed
domain name provides contact details for a Mr. ...Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to divest the Respondents of the disputed domain names,
the Complainant must demonstrate each of the following:
(i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which
the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and
(iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
...
2023-06-23 - Case Details
Under the Complainant’s view such correspondence qualifies a fraudulent attempt by the Respondent to pressure the Complainant to buy the disputed domain name at a premium price, to avoid the risk and cost of litigation, misrepresenting a project that appears to never have existed and only corroborates with the Respondent’s bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy to target the Complainant by taking advantage of the similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s NOVATEL trademark to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant at a price likely in excess of its out-of-pocket costs.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established rights in the NOVATEL trademark.
Section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 notes that the consensus of a relatively straightforward comparison between the disputed domain name and the complainant’s trademark so as to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name.
...Whereas the translation provided by the Complainant reads:
The trademarks on which the opposition is based, A 651984 NOVATEL, M 2361774 NOVATEL DIGITAL, M 2932422 NOVATEL and M 3072227 NOVATEL, are taken into account as there is a high wording similarity and they protect similar or very related goods and services when compared with those claimed by the trade name being studied, hence likelihood of confusion and association will arise between the signs.
...
2019-10-18 - Case Details
Respondent
Respondent states that it registered the Domain Name in good faith because it incorporates a highly valuable common female first name, similar to hundreds of other domain names it has registered, and it has used the Domain Name both in connection with the bona fide offering of goods and services and for a legitimate purpose.
...The reasons for this conclusion are articulated below.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
As noted above, Complainant asserts that it has been in business in Spain since 1923. ...
2016-06-23 - Case Details