Rather, the Center has received certain registrant data from the concerned registrar in reply to our request for registrar verification which differs from that seemingly contained in the WhoIs at the time the Complaint was filed, and we have provided that information to the Complainant.
The Center would note that in past similar circumstances, Complainants have typically (1) amended the Complaint to add the disclosed underlying registrant as (co-)respondent (i.e., in the alternative), (2) amended the Complaint to replace the privacy or proxy registration service with the underlying registrant, or (3) expressed a preference not to amend, and to rather proceed with the Complaint as filed, confirming that in the Complainant's view, the privacy or proxy registration service be regarded as the sole respondent. ...The Panel is also influenced by the obvious case of typosquatting shown on the record, as discussed in the following section, which calls for immediate resolution of the merits.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant's evidence has established both elements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ...
2009-05-22 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
The Complainant must prove the elements set out in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy:
(i) The disputed 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 to the Domain Name; and
(iii) Respondent’s domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
...In previous cases in which a panel ordered transfer of a domain name based upon a trafficker’s duty to undertake a reasonable investigation and found bad faith, either the domain name at issue was distinctive (and not a common word or phrase)3 or the respondent had been found frequently to have ignored others’ trademark rights, as evidenced by losing domain names in previous Policy proceedings.4 Where neither of these circumstances obtained, the panel adhered to the ordinary rule that actual knowledge is required and denied the complaint.5 To our knowledge, no panel has ever placed a duty upon a person or entity that regularly buys and sells domain names to investigate prior ownership or to search similar domain names in the absence of knowledge or imputed knowledge of the Complainant’s mark. In the circumstances of this proceeding we similarly decline to do so.
...
2007-08-22 - Case Details
e) Respondent did not offer to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar.
Respondent raises one serious issue under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. Complainant asserts that it acquired rights (including trademark rights) to “Atlas Shrugged”, at least in respect to movies, by means of an assignment that took place in 1992. ...D2000-1269, cited in the Complaint. The basic factual pattern is similar: complainant held exclusive rights to make a motion picture of a well-known novel6 and respondent registered a domain name that incorporated the critical portion of the novel’s name. ...
2011-06-08 - Case Details
You agree that, if the registration or reservation of your domain name is challenged by a third party, you will be subject to the provisions specified in the Dispute Policy in effect at the time of the dispute.”
Arbitration or similar agreements are perfectly legal in Texas,2 even in contracts of adhesion,3 and submission to such a proceeding raises no issue of confiscation or denial of due process of law.4 This longstanding principle applies equally to governmental entities, unless of course there exists a statutory restriction to the contrary. ...A suspension or termination will accomplish nothing and needlessly delay resolution of the subject of this administrative proceeding – Respondent’s entitlement (or not) to the disputed domain name.
C. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Similarity is obvious, as the disputed domain name incorporates as its dominant feature Complainant’s shorthand name Collin College, a term in which Complainant claims trademark rights. ...
2011-06-07 - Case Details
En la misma línea se pronunciaba el Centro en Ken’s Foods Inc. v. kens.com,
Caso OMPI No. D2005-0721, al resolver un caso muy similar al presente:
“The primary rule in relation to domain name registrations is ‘first come, first served’, to which the Policy provides a narrow exception. ...Notwithstanding the Complainant’s contention that the KEN’S mark is distinctive in relation to the particular category of goods and services for which the mark is used, it is nonetheless a personal name – ‘Ken’ – which is also the Respondent’s given name.3 The Complainant concedes that the Respondent has a legitimate interest under paragraph 4(c)(ii) in maintaining a weblog under a domain name that reflects his personal name, but argues that the Respondent should not be permitted to use any form of his name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. This is little more than a restatement of the Complainant’s argument that its trademark rights entitle it to the exclusive use of KEN’S as a domain name. ...
2011-08-30 - Case Details
The Panel now proceeds to address the Complaint and Response as follows.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant asserts that it is a Japanese company which manufactures and sells a range of products including heaters, air conditioners, dehumidifiers, air cleaners and the like. ...In light of Complainant’s assertions and lack of any denial by Respondent that Complainant has trade mark rights the Panel accepts that Complainant’s Trade Mark is identified with Complainant and that an unrelated entity or person using a similar domain name may potentially lead to members of the public being confused and deceived.
Complainant argues that the Domain Name is the same as Complainant’s Trade Mark. ...
2015-07-08 - Case Details
The disputed domain name differs from that mark only by deletion of the hyphen between the two names and is thus obviously confusing similar. The mark is distinctive and the Respondent, a former employee, selected the disputed domain name for its similarity.
2. ...D2001-0903, because (among other things) it sells third party products at the disputed domain name, and second that the minority view “that, without express authority of the relevant trademark holder, a right to resell or distribute that trademark holder’s products does not create a rightto use a domain name that is identical, confusingly similar, or otherwise wholly incorporates the relevant trademark” should apply to this case. Ibid.
3. ...
2015-04-23 - Case Details
The Respondent was never related with a private, social or commercial activity identified with the word "embraco" or with any other word or phrase similar to or including "embraco".
On March 23, 1998, Complainant sent a letter notifying Respondent of the companyComplainant’s rights on the EMBRACO´s rightstrademark and alerting Respondent that Complainant considered Respondent´s registration of the "embraco.com" to be trademark infringement. ...Parties' Contentions
5.1 Complainant contends that:
a) The domain name "embraco.com" is identical, and therefore confusingly similar to the trademark EMBRACO, because there is an absolute similitude between the word "embraco" in the trademark and in the domain name.
...
2000-12-20 - Case Details
It is also important to note that the domain name register does not involve the use of registered names in order to advertise or market similar goods or services. As a line of business, keeping and maintaining a domain name register does not differ from publishing a telephone directory or keeping an address register and selling addresss services.
...Paragraph 4(a) of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy lists three tests which a complainant must satisfy in order to succeed:
(i) the 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 domain name; and
(iii) the domain name has been registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith.
...
2001-02-01 - Case Details
a) of the
Policy directs that complainants must prove, with respect to each domain name
in issue, each of the following:
(i)The domain name
is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which complainants have rights,
and
(ii)Respondents have
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.
...We
note that a number of other Panels have made similar findings, and it seems
that a broad consensus on this issue is now emerging. See e.g. Backstreet
Boys v. ...
2001-12-11 - Case Details
El nombre de dominio en disputa es idéntico al signo distintivo POLAREA y similar en grado de confusión al signo distintivo POLÁREA RESIDENCES, siendo éstos los elementos distintivos predominantes dentro del mismo. ...El registro de un nombre de dominio idéntico o similar en grado de confusión a pesar de tal conocimiento real o presunto, manifiesta un registro de mala fe según la Política. ...
2014-07-28 - Case Details
Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the
language of the proceedings shall be English.
6.2 Substantive Considerations
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established rights in the SNCTM trademark through its registered
United States trademark, predating the registration of the disputed domain name, and also keeping in mind
its long-standing use since 2013 in connection with the private-members club, variety of events, and
associated products.
...
2025-11-26 - Case Details
In any event, even if the Panel had
admitted the Parties’ supplemental filings, it would not have affected the outcome of this proceeding.
6.2 Substantive Elements of the Policy
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.
Disregarding the country code Top-Level Domain, the disputed domain name is identical to the Trade Mark.
...
2026-01-05 - Case Details
Respondent
Although procedurally summoned, the Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2026-02-25 - Case Details
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark
CARREFOUR and CARREFOUR SPECTACLES registered in the European Union; 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. ...
2026-07-07 - Case Details
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark
CARREFOUR and CARREFOUR SPECTACLES registered in the European Union; 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. ...
2026-07-03 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2026-04-27 - Case Details
Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. ...
2026-05-29 - Case Details
Pursuant to Article 4 of the Commission Regulation (EU) No. 2019/517 and Article B11(d)(1)(i)-(iii) of the
ADR Rules, the Panel finds that: - the disputed domain name is identical or 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
EU-law; - the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; - the
Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
6. ...
2023-12-21 - Case Details
Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel agrees with the Complainant that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s
earlier trademark SONEPAR. ...
2023-03-28 - Case Details